1999 GI/2025

(1363)

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. 12]

नई दिल् ली, मार्च 30—अप्रैल 5, 2025, िजनवार/र्ैत्र 9—र्ैत्र 15, 1947

No. 12]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 30—APRIL 5, 2025, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 9– CHAITRA 15, 1947

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूर्नाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 523.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंि और प्रकीर्च उपबंि) स्ट्कीम, 1970 और 1980 के पैरा 3 के उप-पैरा (1) के

साथ पठठत बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिचन और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 और 1980 की िारा 9 की उप-िारा (3)

के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, नीर्े िी गई सारर्ी के कॉलम (2) में

जवजनर्िचष्ट व्यजियों के स्ट्थान पर उि सारर्ी के कॉलम (3) में जवजनर्िचष्ट व्यजियों को कॉलम (1) में जवजनर्िचष्ट बैंकों के बोडच

में तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक, जनिेिक नाजमत करती िै:-

क्रम सं.

(1)

(2)

(3)

बैंक आफ बड़़ौिा

श्रीमती पावचती स ंिरम

श्री मनोरंिन जमश्रा

(िन्म जतजथ: 28.9.1964)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-15042025-262445

CG-DL-W-15042025-262445

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-15042025-262445

CG-DL-W-15042025-262445

1364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

पंिाब एंड ससंि बैंक

श्री के. पी. पटनायक

श्री जववेक श्रीवास्ट्तव

(िन्म जतजथ: 15.9.1967)

सेंरल बैंक आफ इंजडया

श्रीमती र्ारुलता कर

श्री मनोरंिन िाि

(िन्म जतजथ: 28.5.1965)

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व

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)

Bank of Baroda

Smt Parvathy Sundaram

Shri Manoranjan Mishra

(DOB: 28.09.1964)

Punjab & Sind Bank

Shri K. P. Patnaik

Shri Vivek Srivastava

(DOB: 15.09.1967)

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 दिसम् बर, 2024

का.आ. 524.—भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक अजिजनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की िारा 20 की उप-िारा (1) के साथ

पठठत िारा 19 के खण्ड (ख) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारतीय स्ट् टेट बैंक के उप

प्रबंि जनिेिक श्री राम मोिन राव आमरा (िन् म जतजथ: 13.2.1968) को कायचभार ग्रिर् करने की तारीख से तीन वर्च की

अवजि के जलए अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक (एसबीआई) में प्रबंि जनिेिक के पि पर

जनय ि करती िै।

[फा. सं. 2/1/2024-बीओ-I]

संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1365

नई दिल्ली, 16 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 525.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिचन और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की

उप-िारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अिोक र्न्र

(िन्मजतजथ 16.12.1968) कायचपालक जनिेिक, केनरा बैंक को कायचभार ग्रिर् करने की तारीख से तीन वर्च की अवजि के

जलए अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, पंिाब नैिनल बैंक के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं म ख्य कायचकारी अजिकारी के पि

पर जनय ि करती िै।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(i)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व

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 िनवरी, 2025

का.आ. 526.—बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अिचन और अंतरर्) अजिजनयम, 1970 की िारा 9 की

उप-िारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री जबनोि क मार (िन्मजतजथ

01.01.1971) कायचपालक जनिेिक, पंिाब नैिनल बैंक को कायचभार ग्रिर् करने की तारीख से तीन वर्च की अवजि के जलए

अथवा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी पिले िो, इंजडयन बैंक के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं म ख्य कायचकारी अजिकारी के पि पर जनय ि

करती िै।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(ii)/2023-बीओ-I]

संिय क मार जमश्र, अवर सजर्व

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.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 ekpZ] 2025

का.आ.

.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj iatkc uS”kuy cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक

1366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (03/2014) izdkf”kr djrh

gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/15/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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, 2^nd 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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 ekpZ, 2025

का.आ. 528.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार जनिेिक, सीएसआईआर - राष्ट्रीय पयाचवरर् इंिीजनयररंग अन संिान संस्ट्थान (नीरी), नेिरू मागच, विाच रोड,

नागप र, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और मिासजर्व, नीरी कंत्रजत कामगार संघ, नागप र, के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट

केंरीय

सरकार

औद्योजगक

न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम

न्यायालय,

नागप र,

पंर्ाट

(संिभच

संख्या

(Case

No.CGIT/NGP/01/2024) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

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

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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 - 440020

1370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Dated: 05^th 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?”

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 ekpZ, 2025

का.आ. 529.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार उप मिाप्रबंिक, बीएसएनएल, प्रिान मिाप्रबंिक, िूरसंर्ार, िीरो माइल्स, नागप र ; उप मंडल अजभयंता,

बीएसएनएल, प्रिान अजभयंता, िीरो माइल्स, नागप र , के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री अिय, कामगार,के बीर्

अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केंरीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, नागप र,पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या (Case

No.CGIT/NGP/35/2016-17) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 40012/21/2016- vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 BSNL, Nagpur through its Dy. General Manager

(Administration) & Sub Divisional Engineer and their workman Shri Ajay s/o Arun Sonwane for adjudication, as per

letter No. L-40012/21/2016 (IR(DU)) dated 01.03.2017, with the following schedule:-

“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?”

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 ekpZ, 2025

का.आ. 530.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, दफनले जमल्स, अमरावती रोड, अर्लप र, अमरावती, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और सजर्व,

जगरनी कामगार संघ, सि जवलास बी र्ावरे, मिारािप रा, अर्लप र, अमरावती, के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केंरीय सरकार

औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, नागप र, पंर्ाट (संिभच संख्या (Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/2021-22)

को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42011/73/2022- vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Finlay Mills, Achalpur, District Amravati,

Maharashtra and their workman through Girni Kamgar Sangh, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/73/2022

(IR(DU)) dated 16.03.2022, with the following schedule:-

“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?”

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 ekpZ, 2025

का.आ. 531.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार जनिेिक, मिात्मा गांिी ग्रामीर् औद्योजगकीकरर् संस्ट्थान, मगनवाड़ी, रामनगर, पवनार, विाच (एम.एस.), के

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1373

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वास िेव अरुर्राव साटोन, कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केंरीय सरकार

औद्योजगक न्यायाजिकरर्-सि-श्रम न्यायालय, नागप र,पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/39/2013-14) को

िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.03.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42012/29/2013-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Mahatma Gandhi Institute for Rural Industrialization

and their workman, Shri Vasudeo Arunrao Satone for adjudication, as per letter No.L-42012/29/2013-IR (DU) dated

12.07.2013, with the following schedule:-

“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?”

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.

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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 532.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a20@2014-15)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 41011/64/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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: 06^th February, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Railway Board, New Delhi and their workmen, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/64/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 01.09.2014, with the following schedule:-

“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?”

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 533.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV

(42@2011-12) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/38/2011-vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Bank of Maharashtra, Amravati Branch and their

workman, Shri. Shri Rajesh S/o Vishwanath fudadhe for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/38/2011 (IR(B-II))

dated 23.01.2012, with the following schedule:-

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?”

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1377

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 534.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a19/2014-15) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 41011/63/2014-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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: 06^th February, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Railway Board, New Delhi and their workmen, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/63/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 01.09.2014, with the following schedule:-

“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?”

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 Officer

1378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 535.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (18/2014-15)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -41011/62/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Railway Board, New Delhi and their workmen, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-41011/62/2014 (IR(B-I)) dated 01.09.2014, with the following schedule:-

“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?”

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 536.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

iapkV (a08/2020-21) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y 12011/13/2020- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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, 1^st 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)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 IDBI Bank Ltd., Mumbai and their workmen, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-12011/13/2020 (IR(B-I)) dated 16.07.2020, with the following schedule:—

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?”

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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 537.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़

ds iapkV (a06/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/92/2012- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1381

AWARD

Passed On: 05.02.2025

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”

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.

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.

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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 538.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

केंरीय लोक जनमाचर् जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

-II

ds iapkV (a279/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-42]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

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/Claimant

1382

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.,

12^th 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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 539.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससस पी.एस.एच.एल.टी. (क ांट्रेक्टर); भुबनेश्वरी ओएसपी ऑफ़ एमसीएल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और

श्री िोबबांद गिररअ के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुबनेश्वर, पंर्ाट

(ठरफरेन्स न.- 22/2017) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-20]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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 – 24^th 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 1^st 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).

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.

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.

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.

Order is passed accordingly.

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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 540.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससस न लको गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और न लको एम्प्ल इज सांघ के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुबनेश्वर, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 03/2019) को िैसा दक

अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल -43011/03/2018-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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

…

1^st Party-Management.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1385

(And)

The General Secretary, Nalco Employees

Sangh, Post – Nalco Nagar, District – Angul,

(Odisha) – 759 145.

…

2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-Management.

None.

…

For the 2^nd Party-Union.

ORDER

In the present case, a reference was received from the 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?”

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.

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

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2^nd 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 2^nd Party-Union, referred to above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that

postal services remained unserved in the period, referred to above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the

fact that the above notices were served upon the 2^nd Party-Union. Despite service of the notice, the 2^nd Party-Union

opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2^nd

Party-Union is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

Since the 2^nd Party-Union has neither filed statement of claim nor has led any evidence so as to prove its

cause against the Management, it is presumed that there is no claim of workman against the Management.

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

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 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 541.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससस इांगडय सीमेंट गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वीरभद्र्प के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदर ब द, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 63/2014) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल -29011/65/2013-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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 in

1386

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

The General Manager,

M/s. India Cements Ltd.

Malkapur, Tandur-Mandal,

Ranga Reddy, Dist.-

…Respondents

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.

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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1387

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 542.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार जीटीसी ऑयलफिल्ड सर्वसेज गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री य सीन अहमद के बीर् अन बंि में

जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदर ब द, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 29/2024) को िैसा दक

अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-23]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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,

East Godavari-533103.

…Respondents

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.

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

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 543.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससच ऑयल एंड नेर् रल गैस कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड (ओएनिीसी); मेससच साई बालािी लॉजिजस्ट्टक्स के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और क रजत श्रीजनवास के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

िैिराबाि, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 3/2022) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-24]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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 10^th 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 2^nd 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.

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 been

1390

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

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 544.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलआईसी ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री डी. रमेि के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 56/2014) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में

[सं. एल-17012/45/2013-आईआर(एम)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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 21^st 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—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 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,

Machilipatnam (AP).

…Respondents

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.

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 21^st day of

January, 2025.

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, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 545.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससच वेिांता जलजमटेड केयनच ऑयल; श्री वेंकटेश्वर कंस्ट्रक्िन; श्री बालािी कंस्ट्रक्िन; श्री राम उद्यम; श्री डी. सत्य

साईं बाबा; श्री रामन्िनेय उद्यम; श्री वरजसद्दी जवनायक कंस्ट्रक्िन; वेंकटलक्ष्मी उद्यम; श्री साई राम उद्यम; श्री सत्य रािा

उद्यम; श्री स ब्रह्मण्येश्वर उद्यम; श्री अंिनेय एंटरप्राइिेि; श्री सप्तजगरी एंटरप्राइिेि; जिरडी एंटरप्राइिेि; श्री वेंकट सत्य

ग़ौरी एंटरप्राइिेि; श्री आर एस स रक्षा; सोडेक्सो कैटररंग सर्वचसेि इंजडया प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों

1392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और िनरल सेक्रेटरी, रव्वा कॉन्रैक्ट एम्प्लाइि यूजनयन के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं

श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 44/2024) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै

िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-25]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

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

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

2. Sri Balaji Contructions, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

3. Sri Ram enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1393

4. Sri D. Satya Sai Baba,

C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

5. Sri Ramanjaneya enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

6. Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Constructions, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V),

Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

7. Venkatalaxmi enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

8. Sri Sai Rama enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

9. Sri Satya Raja enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

10. Sri Subrahmanyeswara enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V),

Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

11. Sri Anjaneya Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

12. Sri Sapthagiri Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

13. Shirdi Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

1394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Sri Venkata Satya Gowri Enterprises, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil And Gas, S. Yanam (V),

Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

15. Shri R S Security, C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

16. Sodexo Catering Services India Pvt. Ltd.

C/o M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, S. Yanam (V), Uppallaguptaham

Mandal, Dr. B.R Ambedkar Konseema

Dis. 533213.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Shri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.24(34)/2024-IR dated 09.09.2024 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 Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil

And Gas, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand put forth by the Union for determination of superannuation age beyond 58 years and

consequential benefits for contract labour engaged through various contractors in the establishment of M/s Vedanta

Limited Cairn Oil and Gas, S. Yanam East Godavari District, Andra Pradesh is legal and justified? If not, what relief

the Union is entitled to?”

“Whether the demand put forth by the Union for payment of exgratia @Rs. 15 Lakhs for each to 35 over

aged contractual workman as a terminal benefit engaged through various contractors in the establishment of M/s

Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil and Gas, S. Yanam East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the Union is entitled to?”

“Whether the demand put forth by the Union of Employment of one family member in place of 35 old aged

retiring contractual workman through contractor in the establishment of M/s Vedanta Limited Cairn Oil and Gas,

S. Yanam East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh is legal and justified? If not, what relief the Union is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 44/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner counsel filed petition under section 11 of ID Act with the prayer to permit to withdraw the present

ID case as the Petitioner union has entered into agreement with Respondents u/s 12(3) read with Sec. 18(3) of the I.D.

Act 1947, before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(C), Hyderabad on 26.09.2024 over the Charter of Demands

mentioned in the reference. Hence, Petitioner union intended to withdraw the present ID as settled out of Court.

In view of the memorandum of settlement dated 26-9-2024 the petition filed by the Petitioner union is allowed and

Petitioner /Union is permitted to withdraw present ID case in view of said memorandum of settlement. Award is

passed is accordingly. Reference is answered in accordingly. Transmit u/s 17 of ID Act.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 30^th day of

January, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1395

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 546.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससच ऑनिोर कंस्ट्रक्िन कंपनी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री छट्टी स रेंर क मार के

बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, एनाचक लम, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स

न.- 36/2022) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-26]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s Onshore Construction Company Private Limited and Sri Chhatti Surendra Kumar 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)-26]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT: ERNAKULAM

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5^th day of March, 2025

ID No. 36/2022

Between:

Sri Chatti Surendra Kumar,

S/o Nooka Raju, 7-5-26,

Chattivani Palem, Opp: Electrical Sub-Station

Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam - 530026

…..Petitioner

1396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND:

M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd

ATL Corporate Park, 7^th Floor, Saki Vihar Road

Powai, Mumbai – 400072

….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : In person

For the Respondent: Dr K K HM Syam Sundar & K Shiva Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Office of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Hyderabad by its order No.8/3/2022/B1 dated 11.02.2022, referred the following dispute under

clause(d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, for adjudication to this Tribunal

between the management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd. and their workman. The schedule of the

reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of Management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd , a contractor of

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakh Refinery, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri Chatti

Surendra Kumar, Ex-Khalasi (Semi-skilled)w.e.f. 13.12.2020 is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.36/2022 and the case is presently posted on 28.04.2025,

for Appearance of petitioner.

The matter was taken up today for hearing in view of the direction of Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India to conduct special campaign for disposal of cases vide letter dated 14.2.2025.

Heard both sides. The respondent filed a memo with the averment that the Industrial Dispute was settled

amicably with the petitioner with a Long Term Settlement on 20.9.2022 and a copy of settlement is also filed

alongwith memo. Therefore, respondent prayed to close the present dispute treating it as not pressed in the interest of

justice.

The petitioner has also concurred the same.

Therefore, in view of the above, a No-dispute Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, corrected and signed by me on this

the 5^th day of March, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Union/Petitioner

Management/Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 547.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससच ऑनिोर कंस्ट्रक्िन कंपनी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री पाजलका एलीआज़ार के

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1397

न.- 35/2022) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. िेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-27]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s Onshore Construction Company Private Limited and Sri Palika Eleazar 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)-27]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT: ERNAKULAM

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5^th day of March, 2025

ID No. 35/2022

Between:

Sri Palika Eleazar

S/o Palika Samuel, Venkatapuram Gramam

SC Colony, Thana (PO), Munagapakam Mandalam

Thanam, Visakhapatnam

…..Petitioner

AND:

M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd

ATL Corporate Park, 7^th Floor, Saki Vihar Road

Powai, Mumbai – 400072

….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

In person

For the Respondent: Dr K K HM Syam Sundar & K Shiva Kumar, Advocates

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Office of the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (C), Hyderabad by its order No.8/2/2022/B1 dated 11.02.2022, referred the following dispute under

clause(d) of sub-section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947, for adjudication to this Tribunal

between the management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd. and their workman. The schedule of the

reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of Management of M/s Onshore Construction Company Pvt Ltd , a contractor of

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Visakh Refinery, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri Palika

Eleazar, Ex-store Assistant is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.35/2022 and the case is presently posted on 28.04.2025,

for Appearance of petitioner.

1398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The matter was taken up today for hearing in view of the direction of Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India to conduct special campaign for disposal of cases vide letter dated 14.2.2025.

Heard both sides. The respondent filed a memo with the averment that the Industrial Dispute was settled

amicably with the petitioner with a Long Term Settlement on 20.9.2022 and a copy of settlement is also filed

alongwith memo. Therefore, respondent prayed to close the present dispute treating it as not pressed in the interest of

justice.

The petitioner has also concurred the same.

Therefore, in view of the above, a No-dispute Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri J Vijaya Sarathi, Secretary to the Court, corrected and signed by me on this

the 5^th day of March, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Union/Petitioner

Management/Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 548.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

रक्षा अन संिान एवं प्रयोगिालाएँ ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a60/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल -14011/05/2021-आईआर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.60/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Defense Research

and Laboratories and their workmen.

[No. L-14011/05/2021- IR(B-I]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 7^th day of February, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2021

Between:

The Workering President,

DRDL Casual Workers Union,

BMS Office, TRT-141,

Jawahar Nagar Street No.9

Hyderabad-500020.

..….Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1399

AND

The Director, DRDL

(Defense Research and Laboratries)

Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad-500058.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : A. Thirupathi Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-14011/5/2021 (IR(DU)) dated 04.08.2021

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. DRDL , and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the claim of DRDL Casual Workers Union against the management of DRDL, Kanchanbagh,

Hyderabad that the management of DRDL, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad changed the service condition of

workers from casual workers to contract workers ( List of workers enclosed) during pendency of conciliation

proceedings is proper, legal and justified in the view of section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? If not,

to what relief these workers are entitled for? What directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 60/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Petitioner absent. Case is fixed for today for filing claim statement but despite providing sufficient

opportunity, he did not file any claim statement. It seems that petitioner do not want to pursue his case. Hence, in

absence of claim statement ‘Nil 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 7^th day of

February, 2025

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, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 549.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a18/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)-44]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

1400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025-IR(B-I)-44]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 7^th day of February, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.18/2018

Between:

Tholla Satish Kumar,

S/o T. Subbaiah, Aged about

26 years, R/o H.No. 3-192,

Bhupal Nagar, Nanadanapally

Village, Kurnool Mandal-518452.

..…. Petitioner

AND

1. State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH),

Administrative Office at Gunfoundary,

Abids, Hyderabad, Amaravathi/Vijayawada

Circle. Rep. by its Chief General Manager.

General Manager.

2. The branch Manager,

State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH)

Nandyal Road Branch (21660),

Near Kamal complex, Kurnool-518002.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M Kiran Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Smt. Tholla Satish Kumar, who worked as Safia Karamchari/Attender/Lunch Room Attendant (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 management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages, with

all other attendant benefits.

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. In absence of evidence ‘Nil 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 7^th day of

February, 2025

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1401

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 550.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a63/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)-43]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 63/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-43]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 7^th day of February, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No.63/2018

Between:

Smt. Uppari Deepa,

W/o Late Praveen Kumar,

Aged about 40 years,

R/o H.No. 9-3-171,

Rezimental Bazar,

Secundrabad-500027.

..…. Petitioner

AND

1. State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH),

Administrative Office at Koti,

Bank street, Hyderabad,

Telengana Circle, Rep. by its chief

General Manager.

1402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The branch Manager,

State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBH)

Himmathnagar Branch (20244),

10-3-194 Screccs Building, St. Johns Road,

Beside Himmatnagar Post Office,

Telangana-500025.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M Kiran Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent:

Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

Smt. Uppari Deepa, who worked as Safia Karamchari/Attender/Lunch Room Attendant (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 management to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages, with

all other attendant benefits.

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. In absence of evidence ‘Nil 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 7^th day of

February, 2025

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, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 551.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a124/2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/45/2004- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 124/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/45/2004- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1403

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 25^th day of February, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 124/2004

Between:

Smt. K. Saraswathi,

D.No.26-23-22/1,

Sundaramma Street,

Gandhi Nagar,

Vijayawada-3.

….. Petitioner

AND

The Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India, RG-II,

Zonal Office, No.29-14-59,

Route No.5, Surya Rao Pet,

Vijayawada.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Party in Person

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjith Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-12012/ 45/ 2004-IR(B.I) dated 23.7.2004

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada in dismissing the services of

Smt. K. Saraswathi, Ex-Clerk is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 124/2004 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

Earlier present ID was decided by this tribunal by an award related 8.8.2006 against which the Petitioner preferred

Writ Petition No.20986 of 2007 and Hon’ble High Court of AP has set aside the award dated 8.8.2006 passed by the

Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the CGIT cum Labour Court for disposal on merits and in strict accordance

with the procedure established by law. Therefore, matter has been heard afresh and being decided.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

The Petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents for awarding disproportionate punishment of dismissal of

the Petitioner from the service without following the laid down procedure and not paying the Management PF

Contribution, Gratuity, Pension and superannuation benefits along with arrears as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust,

improper, discriminatory and violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that Petitioner's husband Late

Sri K. Venkata Ramana Prasad was appointed as cashier in the respondent bank on 11.5.1966, while he was working

as Deputy Head Cashier at Governorpeta Branch died on 20.7.1982. Due to sudden death of Late K Venkata

Ramana Prasad to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to relieve from financial destitution the

Petitioner was appointed as clerk in the respondent Bank on 8.3.1983, on compassionate grounds and posted at

Vijayawada branch as clerk. It is further submitted that while she was working at Vijayawada Branch Respondent

Bank suspended the Petitioner in violation of the Bipartite Settlements/awards and without furnishing the purpose for

which the Petitioner was suspended vide order dated 24.8.2001 served on the Petitioner. It is further submitted that as

per the service conditions vide clause 19.11 of First Bipartite Settlement dt. 19-10-1966 & Clause 11 of the MoS

dated 10-4-2002, the Petitioner shall be communicated about the decision of disciplinary action within 3 days thereof.

But in this case the Petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 16.10.2001 i.e.. about 2 months and the charge

sheet dt.29-5-2002 was issued after 9 months. It is gross violation of clause 11 of the settlements signed under

sec.2(p), Sec. l 8(1) of the ID Act 1947 read with rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central Rules 1957). It is

submitted that the Branch Manager of Nunna Branch has issued a show cause notice alleging certain serious

omissions and commissions of fraud against the Petitioner, calling her explanation within 10 days. The Petitioner has

sent her reply vide her letter dt.21-01-2001 denying the allegations. It is submitted that the Assistant General Manager

& Disciplinary Authority had issued a Charge sheet dt. 29-03-2002, with vague allegations in terms of 521 (4) (i) of

1404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sastry Award read with para 18.28 of Desai Award and subsequent Bipartite Agreements calling explanation within

15 days from the Petitioner. The Petitioner has sent her reply to the Respondent vide her letter dt. 8-6-2002 denying

the allegations. But alleged misconduct is not in the definition of Gross misconduct and hence, the charge sheet is not

maintainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Charge sheet clearly indicates that the Disciplinary Authority

had already come to a definite opinion and closed mind about the alleged misconduct as if committed by the

Petitioner and with bias against him, which is violative of the principles of natural justice. Audi alteranm partem is the

principle that no one should be condemned without a hearing in which they are given the opportunity to respond to

the accusations against them. It is considered a principle of fundamental justice and without proper evaluation of the

evidence, when the allegation of forgery and withdrawal was not established without considering the version of the

Petitioner and the records is gross violation of the said principle. The Complainant /Account Holder Smt. Y. Nirmala

Devi of the Respondent Bank stated in PEX 8, that she visited the Bank on 07-03-2001 without passbook and asked

the help of the Petitioner to withdraw the amount of Rs 30.000 and that The Petitioner witnessed her signature. This is

the self declaration given by account holder herself which is recorded as PEX 8 and the Inquiry Officer ignored here

PEX 8, the transaction which has been duly verified by the branch manager. But, in this case the Petitioner was all of

a sudden suspended and not aware whether the suspension is on account of pending enquiry or initiation of enquiry,

thus the DA with out mentioning the reasons and grounds suspended the Petitioner which is in violation of the

settlement unlawful, unjust and arbitrary and violation articles of the constitution of India. It is submitted that

Petitioner received notice of enquiry to be held at Nunna Branch and the copies of the documents relied by the

Respondent Bank, will be provided during the enquiry. It is submitted that the Petitioner attended the enquiry on 30-

7-2002 and gave a representation authorizing Ch. Venkateswara Rao, Asst. General Secretary to defend her case in

the enquiry. The next date of enquiry was 9-8-2002 and the enquiry was concluded on the same date. Further, it is

submitted that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner disproportionate. Hence, this petition. The Petitioner further

submits that there is no financial loss to the bank. The para 521(4)() of Sastry Award states that " doing any act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank into

serious loss". But the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the allegation leveled against the

Petitioner. The allegation though was not proved the prosecution failed to establish about the loss suffered by the

bank. Hence the entire charge sheet shall be treated as not proved and the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is not

only disproportionate but shall be reviewed in terms of the punishment under clause para 521 (7) of Sastry Award &

clause 8 of the MoS dated 10-4-2002 . The Presenting officer had submitted his report to the Enquiry Officer, but not

provided a copy of the Presenting officer, to enable the Defence counsel of the Petitioner to submit his counter

objections on the report. It is bad in law and violation of principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to submit that the

Defence counsel submitted his brief to the Enquiry Officer on 14-10-2002, without an opportunity to counter brief of

the Presenting Officer. It is unfair and unconstitutional to deny the report of the PO. However, the EO without

providing an opportunity to peep into the averments made by the PO reached to conclusions without proper

evaluation of the evidence on record. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 23-10-2002 to the

Respondent finding the Petitioner guilty of all the 4 charges levelled against her. The respondent issued proceedings

No. DPS/R- 11/No. 568 dated 24-10-2002 forwarding a copy of the enquiry report to the Petitioner and asking for any

submissions in reply to the enquiry report within 15 days. In reply to the same, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated

14-11-2002, giving an explanation to all the charges and requesting to exonerate the Petitioner from the charges.

Later, the respondent, issued proceedings No. DPS/R-11/No.844, dated 13-01-2003, stating that the penalty of

Dismissal from Bank Service without notice" is decided to be imposed on the Petitioner in terms of para 6(a) of the

memorandum of settlement dated 10.4.2002 in Disciplinary Action Procedure in the Bank. The copy of the final

disciplinary proceedings were sent to the Petitioner. In the instant case there is no legal evidence available to prove

the alleged charges and in fact on record that the charge was negated by the customer vide PEX-8 herself deposing

that she herself came to the bank on 7-3-200l and presented the withdrawal form. Hence, the charge is disproved

beyond reasonable doubt. The material on record was failed to establish any forgery etc.. It is bad in law and the

Hon'ble court in the case of Central Bank of India V Prakash Chand Jain. (1969 IILLJ 377 SC) has expressed that in

such case of two fold test the Findings of the EO shall be considered as perversity of findings. It is to note that on

perusal of the findings of the EO, reached to conclusions mechanically without considering the enquiry proceedings

where depositions of PW1 to PW3 who were negated the charges. The EO findings the allegation of forgery was not

proved and the statement of PWl negated the allegation. It is further submitted that relying upon the false and

frivolous findings of the Enquiry Officer, DA simply adopted the findings of the EO without considering the

proceedings and the nature of omission and commission and gave the punishment in the absence of any

documentary/oral evidence, is not acceptable and the then Branch Manager and other Assistant Sri D.Suryanarayana

Sastry equally negligent due to which the alleged omission and commissions ought to have averted if they observed

the lapses in the system in performing duties. But, the management has not given any punishment to them

surprisingly, the Assist (A & C) was treated the vital allegation as matter of administration and discharged from

accountability with a caution vide letter dt.26-6-2002 issued by the Disciplinary authority in the capacity of

Asst.General Manager. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is shockingly

disproportionate to the charges proved. It is further submitted that the then Branch Manager PWI deposed that

Mr.Rawoof initialed the balance columns in the Ledger Book. The Accountant Sri Rawoof was not summoned by the

Respondent Bank to depose on this aspect. In the absence of the evidence of the Accountant Sri Rawoof, it cannot be

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1405

held that the charges against the Petitioner are sufficiently proved. The Respondent completely shifted the burden on

to the Petitioner, absolving the Branch Manager who is duly bound to verify the signature on the withdrawal form

with that of the specimen signature at the time of passing the withdrawal form and more so when he was informed by

the Petitioner that the account holder came to the Bank without passbook and asked her help. There is no action

against the Accountant and the Branch Manager at Nunna Branch and only targeted Petitioner and removed from the

service and the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges and unsustainable. Petitioner approached

Appellate Authority through representation which was dismissed on 24-04-2003 without assigning any reasons and

rationale to arrive such decision to dismiss the appeal. It is further submitted that challenging the Award dt.08-08-

2006 of dismissing the dispute of Petitioner, passed in ID 124 of 2004 on the file of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court at Hyderabad, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before the erstwhile AP High

Court at Hyderabad vide WP No.20986 of 2007. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High court allowed the Writ

Petition and setting aside the Award dt 8-8-2006, in ID No.124 of 2004 and remitted the matter back to the CGIT for

disposal afresh on merits and in strict accordance with the procedure established by law. The Hon'ble High Court

considering the fact that the Petitioner already attained the age of superannuation and the matter is sufficiently old

matter directed the tribunal to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 months from the

date of receipt of a copy of the order. None of the allegations was proved during the enquiry. It is essentially required

to be proved in accordance with law. Denial of opportunity to employee to submit his version, relying on the

documents used by the management to prepare the charge sheet is gross violation of the principles of natural justice

and vitiates the departmental enquiry for non-adherence to principles of natural justice as held by the Apex court in

the case of L.I.C. of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen. The Petitioner is unable eke out her livelihood due to financial

problems and added to the financial crisis she is old and suffering from old age ailments. The Management has neither

paid the Bank's PF contribution nor paid the gratuity to the service she rendered to the bank for more than 18 years.

The Petitioner since already attained superannuation though shè is entitled for all the superannuation benefits

including the payment of pension etc.. the bank has not paid the superannuation benefits to the Petitioner is violation

of article 2l of the constitution of India. Therefore, Petitioner prayed to set aside the dismissal order dated 13.1.2003

duly granting all consequential benefits etc..

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:

It is submitted that the dispute raised by the Petitioner is neither maintainable in law nor on facts of the case and as

such the same is to be dismissed in limine. It is submitted that the material allegations made in the petition filed by

the Petitioner are not true and correct and the Respondent Bank denies all the allegations leveled against the Bank,

except those which are specifically admitted therein. It is submitted that the Petitioner is raising unfounded dispute

and entered into litigation. It is submitted that the Petitioner being an employee, has to Work as per the service rules

and guidelines stipulated to her post by Bank. Any misconduct committed by employee results in initiation of

Disciplinary Proceedings against such person. It is submitted that the Petitioner knowing fully the lapses committed

on her part, which are all on record, is however, trying to convince the Hon'ble Court on sympathetic grounds by

filing this petition. It is submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim Pension as of right, as she has no vested right to

claim Pension. The reason is, as per record, she has not completed the required period of service as required and

essential under the service rules applicable to her to be eligible to get Pension. On the other hand, the Petitioner is

claiming other incidental benefits to which she is not eligible. On this ground itself, the petition is liable to be

dismissed. It is submitted that the Petitioner Smt K.Saraswathi was appointed in the Bank on compassionate grounds

in March 1983 consequent to death of her husband who worked as Deputy head cashier in the Bank. It is submitted

that subsequently, the Petitioner was issued charge sheeted vide Memorandum No.DPS/R-1/172 dated 29.05.2002 for

certain irregularities/lapses viz., Presenting forged withdrawal pertaining to customer Smt Y.Nirmala Devi's account

and obtaining payment thereof; unauthorizedly keeping the amount withdrawn by means of such forged withdrawal

for a considerable period of 5 months 10 days with her; Posting two extraneous credits to the account of Smt.

Y.Nirmala Devi, the customer, without supporting vouchers and; altering the balance in the savings bank account of

Smt.Y.Nirmala Devi, the customer, on several occasions to facilitate monthly balancing of SB accounts. It is

submitted that on being not satisfied with the reply of the Petitioner, a detailed domestic enquiry was ordered by

appointing the Enquiry Officer and the presenting officer under advise to the Petitioner. The Petitioner / charge-

sheeted employee was represented by the Assistant General Secretary of Zonal Office, Vijayawada, of State Bank of

India Staff Union, Hyderabad Circle. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.10.2002 and held the charges as

'Proved' based on the material evidence, documents and records. A Copy of the enquiry report was also furnished to

the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Petitioner's submission were received on 15.11.2002. Taking into consideration the

entire material on record pertaining to the case of the Petitioner and as malafides were involved, the then Asst.

General Manager & Disciplinary Authority proposed tentative penalty of "Dismissal from Bank Service" vide

memorandum no. DPS/R-II/755 dated 19.12.2002. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was thereafter provided

with personal hearing on 11.01.2003 for any further submissions. Based on the submissions given by her on personal

hearing, material evidence and other documents, papers and all exhibits, the then Asst. General Manager &

Disciplinary Authority made absolute the proposed punishment and accordingly served the final Orders vide

Memorandum No. DPS/R-II/844 dated 13.01.2003 imposing the penalty of "Dismissal from Bank's Service without

notice" as provided for in the Bi-Partite Settlements. The Petitioner preferred departmental appeal vide letter and

1406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 27.02.2003. The Deputy General Manager Appellate Authority, after taking into consideration all the material

facts, evidences, depositions, and the contentions / grounds raised in the appeal, had independently examined the case

and recorded his findings wherein it was clearly established that signature of the account holder with other records

vary with the impugned withdrawal slip and the same was verified by the Government Examiner; it is also proved that

the Petitioner made the amount good subsequently and that the Petitioner has kept the money (Rs.30,000/-) with her

for 05 month and 10 days; and that the Petitioner had posted extraneous credits without supporting vouchers and the

balances were altered in the ledger account; Thus, it was established that the Petitioner had withdrawn the amount

through forged withdrawal, kept the amount with her for some period and made good the amount only after the

account holder made a Complaint, posted two credits, altered the ledger account of the customer. Hence, the

contentions / grounds raised by the Petitioner in the departmental appeal were held to be untenable. The Petitioner in

fact was appointed on compassionate grounds and hence, she should not have committed such irregularities by

misusing her powers in the discharge of duties. Therefore, the General Manager and Appellate Authority, held that the

appeal has no merits and declined to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, hence, rejected the

departmental appeal vide Orders dated 24.04.2003. It is submitted that as the Petitioner K Saraswathi did not attend

the court, NIL Award was passed by CGIT due to her non appearance. Hence, the Petitioner is well aware about the

commission of lapses. It is submitted that the Petitioner subsequently challenged the said Nil Award before Hon'ble

High Court of Hyderabad by way of filing the Writ Petition No. 20986 of 2007, wherein the Hon'ble High Court

considering the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds held that an opportunity has to be

given to her to have her case decided on merits. It is submitted that it is a matter of record that the disciplinary

proceedings were already taken against Petitioner for her lapses in duty and the enquiry was conducted by the

concerned authority of the Bank following the stipulated guidelines, giving opportunity to Petitioner at every stage of

enquiry which took place way back in the year 2002-2003. As her lapses were proved, the order of Dismissal was

passed against her. In the appeal filed by her against the order vide order No DPS/R-II/No 844 dated 13.01.2003, was

also dismissed onn 24.04.2003. This fact was also admitted by the Petitioner in her petition. Thus, the order had

become final and the Petitioner also received her PF which contributions she was eligible under law. The Petitioner

has attained the age above 60 years and at this juncture cannot claim any benefits as she is not eligible to get any

relief sought by her. But as per record, she has completed 19 years of service only. So, she is ineligible to get

pension as per service rules applicable to her. It is also pertinent to note that the contention raised by the Petitioner

that there is no loss to the Bank is highly untenable at the cost of her apology as the Bank is a financial institution and

integrity and honesty is the basic norm expected from all its employees. The loss of reputation is also an issue and

hence, the contentions raised by the Petitioner are liable to be rejected. It is submitted that the Petitioner was paid the

benefits that are payable to a dismissed employee and she cannot claim more than what was paid to her by Bank i.e.,

PF contribution paid to her. As more than 17 years passed from the date of dismissal and Petitioner attained age of

superannuation i.e., 60 years, now it is unfeasible to consider the merits in this case, as no benefit can be extended by

Bank to the Petitioner in these circumstances. It is submitted that the Rules as applicable to the Petitioner were

imposed as per the Bi-Partite Settlements. It is also relevant to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

while adjudicating the issues, involving similar situation, in State Bank cf Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand

Nalwaya AIR 2011 SC 1931, Judgment reported in (1998) 4 SCC310, Vishwamohun Vs. Union of India, Judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tarachand Vyas Vs. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority reported in (1997) 4

SCC 565. Bank employees deal with the money of depositors and customers. As such they are required to take all

possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank and to discharge their duties with utmost integrity, honesty and

devotion and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank employee/Officer. It is no defence to say that there is no loss or

profit resulted in the case. It is pertinent to state that owing to fraudulent acts of the Petitioner, the bank is put to reputation loss

and loss of public money and there are no extenuating circumstances warranting for extending sympathy to consider for any

leniency in the matter". It is submitted that the petition is baseless on facts and untenable as per Law. Hence, the petition is

liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs, as the petition is devoid of merits.

Both the parties have submitted their written submissions.

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties following issues arise for determination in the

present case:-

Whether the departmental enquiry held against Smt. K. Saraswathi, Ex. Clerk of State Bank of

India is legal and valid?

II.

Whether the action of management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada in dismissing the services

of Smt. K. Saraswathi, Ex. Clerk is justified?

III.

To what relief the Workman is entitled?

Findings:-

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

22.11.2024.

This point is decided accordingly.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1407

7. Point No. II:- In the instant case Petitioner Smt. K. Saraswathi has challenged her dismissal order passed by

respondent vide proceeding dated 13.1.2003 imposing the penalty of dismissal from bank’s services without notice

on the grounds of that being it is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and in violation of principles of natural justice.

The record of enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that following charges framed against the charge sheeted

employee:-

“1.

It is reported that on 7.3.2001 you have presented a forged Savings Bank withdrawal dated 7.3.2001 for

Rs.30,000/- without pass book pertaining to SB account No.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi, a customer

and obtained payment thereof.

2. It is reported that you have unauthorizedly kept the amount of Rs.30,000/- withdrawn by you from the SB

account No.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi by means of a forged withdrawal on 7.3.2001 till 17.8.2001 i.e.,

for a period of 5 months – 10 days and when Smt. Y. Nirmaladevi made a complaint to the Branch manager

of Nunna branch, you have made good the said amount on 17.8.01 to the Branch Manager, State Bank of

India, Nunna with a written request to handover the same to Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi.

It is reported that you have posted two extraneous credits of Rs.30,000/- each on 22.3.2001 and 13.4.2001 in

the saving bank account no.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi, a customer, without supporting vouchers.

It is reported that you have altered the balances in the Savings Bank Account No.12/2556 of Smt Y. Nirmala

Devi on several occasions from 7.3.01 onwards to facilitate monthly balancing.”

After recording the evidence, Enquiry Officer had found charge sheeted employee guilty of the charges as mentioned

above.

First and foremost plea taken by Petitioner is that the complaint is starting point of any disciplinary action

but in the present matter there is no complaint against the Petitioner and Enquiry Officer has not called the customer,

the complainant as management witness in the enquiry whereas the PW1 in his cross examination has clearly stated

that as per PEx.8 the complainant /account holder Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi visited bank on 7.3.2001 without passbook

and asked the help of Petitioner to withdraw an amount of Rs.30,000/- from her account. Therefore, Petitioner has

signed as a witness on withdrawal form. Thus, for the want of evidence of complainant customer Smt. Y. Nirmala

Devi the dismissal order of Petitioner is illegal and liable to be set aside.

10.

Perused the record. In this case the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the CSE Petitioner on the

charge of committing misconduct while she was working in the Bank as Senior Assistant. The allegation against the

Petitioner is that she had presented forged SB account withdrawal form and obtained the payment of Rs.30,000/-

from the SB Account of customer Smt. Nirmala Devi unauthorizedly and misappropriated the aforesaid amount for

considerable period of 5 months 10 days. Secondly, she has been charge sheeted for altering the balances in SB

account No.12/2556 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi, without supporting voucher and altering the balances in SB account of

the customer to facilitate monthly balancing and such acts of CSE which amounted to gross misconduct. The

charges alleged has been held proved against CSE in the disciplinary proceedings and Enquiry Officer on the basis

of appreciation of documentary and oral evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 on record has submitted his report

holding CSE guilty of charges.

11.

It is settled law that a customer of bank need not be involved in a domestic enquiry conducted as such a

course would not be conducive to proper banker customer relationship and therefore, would not be in the interest of

bank. In this context, reference of the decision of State Bank of India vs Tarun Kumar Banerjee, AIR 2000 page

3028 is relevant. Therein Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that customer of the bank cannot be involved in

domestic enquiry against the employees of the bank as it would not be conducive to proper bank-customer

relationship. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the plea raised by

the Petitioner in this respect is not tenable.

12.

Further Petitioner has taken the plea that the statement of imputation of misconduct on which CSE was

charge sheeted employee shall accompany a charge sheet to submit her reply. The object of furnishing statement of

imputation to the delinquent official is to give him all the necessary particulars and details relating to charge so that

she will have sufficient opportunity to put her defence. But in the instant case she has been denied the supply of list

of documents and list of witnesses produced by Management in support of the charges. Further, it is contended that

Audi Alteram Partem is the principle that no one should be condemned without a hearing in which they are given the

opportunity to respond to the accusations against them when the allegation of forgery and withdrawal was not

established. The Management in the instant case without considering the version of the Petitioner and the records has

passed her dismissal order in gross violation of the said principle.

13.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent contended that the departmental enquiry against the

charge sheeted employee has been held by following the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing

was extended to the Petitioner during the enquiry. Further, it is submitted that the defence representative was also

permitted during the enquiry on behalf of the Petitioner. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that fair opportunity of

hearing was not accorded is baseless and not acceptable.

1408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14.

Perused the record of enquiry proceeding. The record of enquiry goes to reveal that Petitioner CSE has been

accorded ample opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceeding which she availed and she never raised any

objection at any stage of proceeding complaining of causing of prejudice of any nature to her before the Enquiry

Officer. Further, the record of enquiry proceeding goes to show that she received all the papers and documents filed

that relied upon by the Respondent bank in support of the charge sheet and she also filed her reply and also cross

examined the management witness and the opportunity to adduce evidence in defence was also accorded to her which

she did not avail. The inquiry report further goes to show that the Enquiry Officer appreciated the oral or documentary

evidence and thereafter has submitted his reasoned report holding the CSE guilty of all four charges. Therefore, in

the instant case, no case is made out to hold that domestic enquiry suffers from any procedural lapses or was

conducted in violation of principles of natural justice thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the applicant.

Further, the record of enquiry proceeding goes to reveals that defence representative on behalf of the charge sheeted

employee has also submitted his written brief on conclusion of the hearing of the enquiry and she never complained

of non-service of documents on which the Respondent has relied upon in support of the charge. Therefore, in view

of fore gone discussion the plea of the Petitioner that she was not accorded fair opportunity of hearing during

enquiry proceeding is not tenable.

15.

Further, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the charges were framed against the Petitioner with

the allegation that on 7.3.2001 she had presented a forged Savings Bank withdrawal dated 7.3.2001 for Rs. 30,000/-

without passbook pertaining to SB account No.12/2256 of Smt. Y.Nirmala Devi a customer and obtained the payment

herself and misappropriated the same unauthorizedly by keeping amount of Rs.30,000/- for the period of 5 months 10

days without any justification and explanation. Further, when customer/Account holder Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi made a

complaint to the Branch Manager of Nunna branch, CSE has made good the amount on 17.8.2001. Petitioner

contended that none of the ingredients of i.e., forged withdrawal, unauthorisedly keeping money with her has been

proved in the absence of evidence either through oral or through documentary. Therefore, the claim of the respondent

that charge stands proved against CSE is arbitrary and frivolous.

16.

In this context, perused the record. It is undisputed that there was withdrawal of the amount of Rs.30,000/-

from the account No.12/ 2566 of Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi on 7.3.2001 by the Petitioner and same amount was handed

over to the Branch Manager by the Petitioner /CSE on 17.8.2001 after a period of 5 months 10 days. The fact of

withdrawal of Rs.30,000/- by the Petitioner /CSE from the SB Account of Smt. Nirmala Devi on 7.3.2001 and

keeping the said amount by CSE until 17.8.2001 with her and got it returned to Branch Manager on 17.8.2001 after a

long period of 5 months 10 days is clearly established by oral and documentary evidence on record. However, during

the Departmental enquiry proceeding, when Enquiry Officer asked charge sheeted employee whether she wants to

submit anything in the matter. In reply CSE stated that as quoted below verbatim:-

“I have been appointed in the bank through compassionate appointment. I have three children out of which one boy

and girl are not settled yet. I have the responsibility to look after them. I have not done any mistake knowingly.

Please forgive me with a big heart if I have done any mistake unknowingly. Please give back my job to me. I

promise that I will not make any mistake further, will work to the satisfaction of the higher authorities and will not

bring any defame to the bank. I have no other assets other than this job. My children and I will become orphans

without this job. So I request you to please forgive me as this is my first mistake and please give back my job to me. I

have been cheated in many ways in my life. I am totally dependent on this job. Myself and my family members will

become orphans without the job. Please forgive me with mercy.”

Thus, from the aforesaid statement of CSE it is clearly established that on 7.3.2001 Petitioner/CSE has withdrawn the

amount of Rs.30,000/- from the bank account of one customer Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi unauthorizedly by means of

forged withdrawal and kept the said amount with her for a period of 5 months 10 days. Thus, Petitioner had admitted

her mistake that is further corroborated by oral and documentary evidence on record. Thus, Petitioner has committed

misconduct of misappropriation of money and rightly held guilty of charges. Further, it is established that Smt.Y.

Nirmaladevi made a complaint to the Branch Manager of Nunna branch, of short of fund inher SB Account on

17.8.2001 and thereafter CSE made good the said amount on 17.8.2001 to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

Nunna. Further, CSE has also written an application to Branch Manager with request to handover the said amount to

Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi. Thus, there is ample evidence on record in support of the charges levelled against the CSE

/Petitioner. The plea of Petitioner that ingredients of the charge framed against her is not supported by any evidence

is not acceptable.

17.

Petitioner strenuously argued that the complainant herein Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi has already withdrawn her

complaint vide PEx. 8 moved against the CSE/Petitioner and therefore in these circumstances, the charges of

unauthorised withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the account of Smt. Y.Nirmala Devi the complainant and

retaining the amount with her for 5 months 10 days is not proved.

18.

Perused the record of enquiry proceeding. During enquiry, Petitioner’s defence representative has cross

examined PW2 and witness has stated about contents of PEx.8 reproduced as under:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1409

“It is a letter addressed to the Branch Manager, SBI, Name dt. 17/08/01 by Y Nirmala Devi W/O R Prasada Rao.

Ashok Nagar Patamata, Vijayawada. The contents are that she is having SB A/C 12/2556 in our branch. On

07/03/2001 she came to the bank to withdraw and amount of Rs. 30,000/- but she forgot to bring the passbook. Hence,

she requested Smt K Saraswathi, staff of Nunna branch to help her in drawing the amount since she needed the funds

urgent, and she could not bring the passbook within the banking hours as she was staying at a long distance. On

reverse of the voucher, Smt Saraswati witnessed her signature and asked her to wait or one will handover the cash at

her residence. Today when she complained to the bank on 16/08/01 the amount was returned to her account by Smt K

Saraswati. As such complaint may kindly be treated as withdrawn.”

Thus, it is established that account holder Smt. Nirmala Devi has moved complaint dated 16.8.2011 for short of fund

of Rs.30,000/- in her account against Petitioner Smt. Saraswathi Devi and later on she has withdrawn it. But the fact

remains established that Petitioner has withdrawn the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the account of the complainant

Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi on 7.3.2001 unauthorizedly and she kept it with her for a period of 5 months and 10 days

returned the same on 17.8.2001. The Petitioner being posted on the post of Senior Assistant while in the employment

of bank has to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and she is not authorised to withdraw the amount from the

customer’s account unauthorisedly and to retain it with her for 5 months 10 days without any justification. The duty

enjoins upon the Petitioner was either to return the amount to the customer or to inform the Branch Manager on the

same day to get it deposited into the sundry account of the bank. But the conduct of the Petitioner by retaining the

amount of Rs.30,000/- with her after withdrawing from the account of the complainant for 5 moths 10 days cannot be

said to be justified in any manner whatsoever may be. As regards the act of misconduct committed by an employee I

would like to make a reference of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as extracted below:-

The “Misconduct” has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case M.M. Malhotra vs. Union of India

others, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraphs 17 to 21 on Misconduct' which are being

reproduced as under:

"17. The range of activities which may amount to acts which are inconsistent with the interest of public service and

not befitting the status, position and dignity of a public servant are so varied that it would be impossible for the

employer to exhaustively enumerate such acts and treat the categories of misconduct as closed. It has, therefore, to be

noted that the word "misconduct" is not capable of precise definition. But at| the same time though incapable of

precise definition, the word "misconduct" on reflection receives its connotation from the context, the delinquency in

performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. The act complained of must bear a forbidden

quality or character and its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein

the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve.

18. In Union of India and Ors. v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, (2001| 5 SCC 593, in the background of Rule 14 of the Army

Rules, it was held that any wrongful act or any act of delinquency which may or may not involve moral turpitude

would be "misconduct" under Rule 14.

19. In Baldev Singh Gandhi v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2002] 3 SCC 667, it was held that the expression

"misconduct" means unlawful behaviour, misfeasance, wrong conduct, misdemeanour etc.

20. Similarly, in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, AIR (1992) SC 2188), it was held that the term

"misconduct" may involve moral turpitude. It must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, wilful in

character, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere

error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden

quality or character.

21. "Misconduct" as stated in Batt's Law of Master and Servant (4th Edition) (at page 63) is "comprised positive acts

and not mere neglects or failures," The definition of the word as given in Ballentine's Law Dictionary (148th Edition)

is "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity

may demand, it is a violation of definite Law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness.

Further, in the case Inspector Premchand vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, Hon'ble Apex Court

considered the term "misconduct" and held as under in paragraphs 10 and 11:

"10. In State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, it was stated:

"Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Síxth Edition at page 999, thus:

'A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful

behaviour, willful in character, improper or wrong behaviour, its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior,

delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.' Misconduct in office has been

defined as:

1410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Any unlawful behaviour by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces

acts which the officer holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of

affirmative duty to act."

11. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, at page 3027, the term 'misconduct' has been defined as

under:

"The term 'misconduct' implies, a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment.

Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.

The word 'misconduct is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject matter and the context

wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. Misconduct

literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct."

From the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is evident that misconduct generally it means unlawful

behaviour, wrong conduct, misdemeanor etc. The word misconduct has to be construed with the reference to the

subject matter and the context where the term occurs. It is failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act and is

not mere negligence or failure or an error of judgement. Thus, in the instant matter, the conduct of CSE can not be

termed as negligence or failure or any error of judgement. But the record clearly shows that act of CSE Petitioner of

misappropriation of money of Rs.30000/- after withdrawal of it from the account of customer by forged withdrawal

for a considerable period of 5 months 10 days and in furtherance of that misconduct Petitioner also made a forged

entry in order to correct monthly balance in the account of customer as well as in ledger entries goes to show the

malafide act committed under definition of ‘Misconduct’.

19.

As regards appreciation of evidence in the departmental proceeding, relevant decisions of Hon'ble Supreme

Court are being discussed below:-

In the case of State of Haryana versus Rattan Singh 1977 ACC page 491 while dealing with the standard of proof/

Evidence applicable in domestic enquiry Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence

Act may not apply. Ail materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy

to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and

administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly

speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text

books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a

judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of

natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of

judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding,even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good.

However, the courts below mis-directed themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone

out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to

which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passengers from American jurisprudence does not go

to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there

some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings

but in a fair common-sense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way,

sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in

support of a ending is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on

the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence

which has elevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is

invalid on that ground.

In the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Heem Singh, civil Appeal No.3340/2020, dated 29.10.2021, Hon’ble

Apex Court have held:

Disciplinary enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they are not governed by strict rules of

evidence which apply to judicial proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict standard which governs a

criminal trial, of proof be yond reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a preponderance of probabilities.

Within the rule of preponderance, there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The first end of the

spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy -deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact

finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other

end of the spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to interfere when the findings in the enquiry are

based on no evidence or when they suffer from perversity.

To determine whether the finding in a disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or threshold level of

scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the charge

of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1411

in a disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the judge to be more appropriate. To do so would

offend the first principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the exercise of robust common sense

without which the judges' craft is in vain.”

In Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Anr. [(2008) 3 SCC 484], this Court held:

“17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not

applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising

power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part

of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been

excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles.

The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the

department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof,

namely -

preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied,

the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is

giving way to the doctrine of proportionality."

Thus, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above stated cases, in the instant matter

there is ample documentary and oral evidence against the CSE to prove the charges against her that on 7.3.2001 she

has withdrawn the amount of Rs.30,000/- unauthorizedly with forged withdrawal form from the SB account of one

customer Smt. Y. Nirmala Devi and misappropriated the same till she made complaint on 16.8.2001 and CSE made

good that amount to the Branch Manager after a period of 5 months 10 days. It is settled law that even the

misappropriation of property of others for a short period, amounts to misconduct for which the delinquent is liable

for disciplinary action. In the instant matter it is not a case of no evidence and there is ample documentary and oral

evidence against delinquent on record. Hence, the plea of workman that dismissal order suffer from perversity is not

tenable.

20.

Therefore, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence as well as the admission of the CSE/Petitioner

during the enquiry that she had unauthorizedly withdrawn an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the bank account of Smt.

Y. Nirmala Devi and retained it for 5 months 10 days unauthorizedly in violation of rules/regulations of Bank,

thereby Petitioner has committed gross misconduct hence she has been awarded the penalty of dismissal from

service. As the charges has been proved against the delinquent employee in the enquiry, no employer would suffer or

allow or tolerate such behaviour of his employee and it has every right to initiate domestic enquiry against such

employee for gross misconduct. Thus, the charges being serious in nature therefore the order of dismissal passed

against the Petitioner cannot be faulted with nor it can be said in any way disproportionate to the gravity of the

charges. In other words, punishment of dismissal is proportionate with the gravity of the charges and deserves to be

upheld.

21.

Further, workman has taken the plea that there has been no loss to bank or to complainant except for some

inconvenience of one day for which she has explained the reason. It is settled law that in the matter of disciplinary

proceeding, question of loss is immaterial. In such matters, it is to be seen whether the conduct of delinquent

employee was in contravention of rules/regulations, practice of employment, that amounts to misconduct and same

attracts the disciplinary proceeding against employee. Hence, the facts remain that Petitioner has misappropriated

the amount of customer of Rs.30000/- after withdrawing it from account by forged withdrawal and retained it for a

considerable period of 5 months 10 days. The question of misconduct of delinquent employee has to be considered

here, question of loss to any party is immaterial for disciplinary proceedings against employee.

22.

As regards the jurisdiction of Tribunal to interfere in the decision of the disciplinary authority, regarding

quantum of punishment is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that Courts will not act as an Appellate Court

and reassess the evidence held in domestic enquiry nor interfere with the punishment.

In this context, reference of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Nemi

Chand Nalwaya in Civil Appeal No.5861/2007 AIR 2011 SC 1931 dated 1.3.2001 is relevant wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court have held:-

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

Enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the Enquiry has been fairly and

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

evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with

findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are

clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such

conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if

principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala

fide or based on extraneous considerations.”

1412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Further, in Vishwamohan Vs. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 310, Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

"trust is the corner stone of Banking business, absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be

preserved by every bank employee. If it is not observed, the confidence of the public/ depositors would be impaired".

In Tarachand Viyas Vs. Chairman, Disciplinary Authority reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565, where in the Hon’ble

Apex Court have held:-

"that the Bank employees are required to exercise higher degrees of honesty and integrity. They deal with the money

of depositors and customers. As such they are required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank

and to discharge their duties with utmost integrity, honesty and devotion and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a

Bank employee/Officer. it is no defence to say that there is no loss or profit resulted in the case. It is pertinent to state

that owing to fraudulent acts of the petitioner, the bank is put to reputation loss and loss of public money and there

are no extenuating circumstances warranting for extending sympathy to consider for any leniency in the natter".

Thus, in view of the above the plea of the Petitioner that the respondent management has imposed disproportionate

punishment which is shockingly disproportionate to one’s conscious is not tenable. In the instant matter, the

Departmental Enquiry has been conducted against the charge sheeted employee fairly and properly and findings are

based on relevant evidence. The question of adequacy of evidence and the reliable nature of evidence will not be

ground for interfering with the finding in Departmental Enquiries. Therefore, plea of the Petitioner in view of the

above is not tenable. As regards nature of gravity of the misconduct committed by Petitioner is concerned, in this

context I would like to make reference of few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are discussed as

under:-

In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. PC Kakkar AIR 2003 SC page

3571, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India have held,

“Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity -Defence that there was no loss of

profit resulting – not available when delinquent employee acted without authority- High Court setting aside as

shockingly disproportionate without indicating reasons – Amounts to denial of justice- fact that co-delinquent is

given lesser punishment – can also be no ground for interference.”

In JP Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India 1982 AIR page 673,

“ the facts of the case are that the Appellant was working as cashier in the Meerut State branch of State Bank of

India, the complainant, came to bank to receive his pass book. On receipt of pass book accountholder complained

that he had withdrawn only Rs.500/- but there is entry of Rs.1500/- as shown in the passbook. The complainant

reported matter to the Supervisor R K Gupta, and necessary documents pertaining to such withdrawal were examined

and it was found that the complainant has given a letter of authority to the Appellant workman and authorizing to

withdraw the amount Rs.500/-from his account. The said authority letter was for withdrawal of Rs.500/-, but,

workman acting as cashier manipulated figure in the letter from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/- and withdrawn the amount

retained Rs.1000/- with him.

In that case enquiry was held and the casual Appellant was dismissed from the job. In the case the alleged

misconduct of the Appellant to produce forged documents and withdrew Rs.1500/- instead Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- in

excess of the amount which he was not authorized misappropriated it. In that case Appellant had submitted his

confession letter and on the basis of the confession letter and substantial evidence he was terminated from the service

and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the termination of the Appellant.”

(vii).

In the case of Darshan Singh Vs. Canara Bank CWP No.10458/ 2003 D.O.D. 6.4.2017 High Court

held:

“the Court has rightly observed that oral evidence contrary to documentary evidence and entries has not to be

believed this was the case defendant for proof of misconduct on documentary evidence and entries in the Saving Bank

Account pass book and ledger folios etc.. The workman admitted that these entries made by him saying that it was

made under bonafide mistake. Such act have serious propensities which when made public a bank might loss its

reputation and confidence in investing public, not continue employment. It was the case of misappropriation. Even if

it is classified as temporary misappropriation or temporary embezzlement both are bad of law. Workman therefore,

cannot be absolved simply, by saying that entries were some bonafide mistake. In the opinion of Labour Court no

lenience can be shown to the workman. Once the misconduct is proved in the enquiry conducted by employer,

punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to

suggest victimization.”

Further, in the case of Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs. A.L. Mohan Rao, Civil Appeal No.1733 of 2004, date of

decision 26.10.2005 Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld punishment of dismissal of bank employee of gross

misconduct of similar nature as in the instant matter.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1413

23.

The facts of the case are that, Respondent was working as an attendar at the Kudregundi branch of appellant

bank and he was charge sheeted for gross misconduct in as much as he has colluded with one of the Branch Managers

and enabled grant of a fictitious loan in the name of one Sri Ramakrishna, the real beneficiary being a person named

B. Raghava. During enquiry, the Respondent admitted that he prepared the loan agreement. He admitted that he had

made the relevant entries in the Ledger and credit and debit slips and also prepared DP note and the other documents

required for the purpose of loan. It was admitted that he had prepared these documents knowing that he had no

authority to make any entries in the books/ledgers. In that case Hon'ble Supreme Court have held:-

“6. In our view, a gross misconduct of this nature does merit termination. We fail to see what other type of

misconduct would merit termination. It is not for the courts to interfere in cases of gross misconduct of this nature

with the decision of the disciplinary authority so long as the inquiry has been fair and proper and misconduct proved.

In such matters, it is for the disciplinary authority to decide what is the fit punishment. In any case on such a

misconduct, it could never have been said that termination of service is not the appropriate punishment.”

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as discussed in

preceding paragraphs, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the Petitioner for committing gross misconduct of

misappropriation of amount of customers by withdrawing from SB account unauthorizedly, is proportionate with the

gravity of the charges and it deserves to be upheld. Petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

Thus, Point No.II is decided accordingly.

24.

Point No.III: In view of the finding given at Points No. I & II, the Petitioner is not entitled to get any

relief and this petition is found to be baseless, hence, liable to be dismissed the action of Respondent Bank

Management in dismissing the service of CSE is held justified.

Therefore, Point No.III is decided accordingly.

AWARD

The action of the management of State Bank of India, Vijayawada in dismissing the services of Smt. K.

Saraswathi, Ex-Clerk is held legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Reference

is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 25^th day of February, 2025.

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, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 552.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार ल इि इन्सुरेंस कॉपोरेशन ऑफ़ इांगडय के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री उपेंद्र मदनल ल पटले के बीर्

अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, न िपुर, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 04/2020-

21) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-28]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

1414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 04/2020-21) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Upendra Madanlal Patle 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)-28]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/Appln/04/2020-21

Date: 11.03.2025.

Party No.1:

Upendra Madanlal Patle

Aged about 34 years,

Occupation : Nil,

R/o. Rajegaon, Post Rajegaon,

Tah. and District – Gondia.

V/s.

Party No.2:

1) The Life Insurance Corporation of

India, through the Senior Divisional

Manager, Divisional Office, Nagpur,

National Insurance Building,S.V.

Patel Marg, Nagpur, Tah. & District-

Nagpur.

2) The Branch Manager, Life Insurance

Corporation of India, Ganesh Nagar,

Gondia, Tah. and District-Gondia.

AWARD

(Dated: 11^th March, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)

Act, 2010 (“the Act” in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Life Insurance Corporation of India and the applicant, Shri. Upendra M. Patle for adjudication, vide

case no. CGIT/NGP/Appln/04/2020-2021, with the following issues framed:-

“Whether the termination of the applicant vide order dated 19/01/2019 is legal, fair and justified?”

Case called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ghagarkar is present before the Court but none is

present on behalf of the applicant. Applicant is not responding and attending the Court since 24/03/2023. Today the

case is fixed for adducing evidence from the side of applicant and hearing on the application for dismissal of the case

filed by the respondent dated 23/01/2025. Heard, Learned Counsel for the respondent on dismissal application but

none is present on behalf of the applicant to protest against this application. Although applicant as well as respondent

have filed their statement of claim and written statement respectively but applicant has not filed any evidence to prove

the contents of the claim. Applicant is not appearing before the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want

to contest the case further more. Claim of the applicant is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The termination of the applicant vide order dated 19/01/2019 is legal, fair and justified. The workman

is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1415

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 553.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय सरकार

इांडो बम स पेट्रोल कांपनी गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री हर िोगवन्द बसांह के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर् एवं श्रम न्यायालय, न िपुर, पंर्ाट (ठरफरेन्स न.- 23/2001) को िैसा दक

हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 30012/10/2001- vkbZ vkj (एम)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2001) 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 Indo Burma Petrol Company Limited and Shri Har Govind Singh which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. L-30012/10/2001-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/23/2001

Date: 11.03.2025.

Party No.1:

Indo Burma Petrol Co. Ltd.

265-A, Bajaj nagar,

Nagpur.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Har Govind Singh

C/o Sh.R.R.Naidu,Jt. Secy, Hammer Workers Union, Sath

Niwas, West Park Rd. Maurka Gali, Dhantoli

Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 11th March, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Dy. General Manager, IBP Company Ltd., Nagpur

and their workman Shri Har Govind Singh, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-30012/10/2001 (IR(M)) dated

15.05.2001, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Dy. General Manager, IBP Company Ltd. Nagpur in

terminating the services of Shri Har Govind Singh, Ex-courierman w.e.f. 15.10.1999 was legal, proper &

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

Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since

03/03/2023. Although, petitioner and respondent have filed statement of claim and written statement respectively.

Petitioner has also filed affidavit as his evidence but petitioner has not come before the Court to prove the contents of

the affidavit as well as contents of the statement of claim. Previously, on 23/05/2002, case was decided by my

predecessors. At that time no evidence was produced by the workman in support of the claim. Later on, this order was

set aside and case has been restored but on same footing, petitioner is not attending the Court since long back and no

1416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

other evidence has been adduced by him to prove his claim. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the

case further more. Case of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Dy. General Manager, IBP Company Ltd. Nagpur in terminating the

services of Shri Har Govind Singh, Ex-courierman w.e.f. 15.10.1999 was legal, proper & justified. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 554.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (40a/2018-19) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 41012/25/2018- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 40/2018-19) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and

their workmen.

[No. L-41012/25/2018-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/40/2018-19

Date: 27.02.2025.

Party No.1:

The Divisional Railway Manager (P),

Central Railway, Nagpur division,

Kingsway, Station Road,

Nagpur – 440001.

V/s.

Party No.2: (a)

Shri Walmik anandrao,

C/o Plaza Tailors, S.T. Depot Road,

Ramnagar, Wardha (M.S.) – 442001.

(b)

The Joint Divisional Secretary,

Rail Kamgar Sena, Nagpur Divisional Office,

Office No. 4, Basement, ‘C’ Wing,

Rai Ashiyan Housing Society,

Motibag, Nr. Kadbi Chowk,

Nagpur – 440004.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1417

AWARD

(Dated: 27^th February, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Central Railway and their workman, Shri Walmik

Anandrao Mankar through The Joint Divisional Secretary, Rail Kamgar Sena for adjudication, as per letter No. L-

41012/25/2018-IR(B-I) dated 31.10.2018, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway

Manager in deducting illegal recovery of Rs. 4,915/- per month from the salary of Shri Walmik

Anandrao Mankar w.e.f. 18.08.2015 and not returning the amount allegedly deducted is just, fair and

legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not attending and responding since

13.06.2019. Petitioner has not filed Statement of claim till date. Similarly, Respondent has not filed Written

Statement till date. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not attending

and responding since long back. It appears that, he 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 Central Railway, Nagpur through its Divisional Railway

Manager in deducting illegal recovery of Rs. 4,915/- per month from the salary of Shri Walmik Anandrao

Mankar w.e.f. 18.08.2015 and not returning the amount allegedly deducted is just, fair and legal. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 555.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj जविभच क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीर् बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a03/2010-11) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/86/2009- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2010-11) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Vidarbha Kshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/86/2009- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/03/2010-11

Date: 20.02.2025.

Party No.1:

The Chairman,

Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Swanand,

Oke Marg, Jatharpeth,

Dist- Akola (MS).

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri Punjaram W. Wankhede,

R/o Belkhed, Post Belkhed,

Tah: Umarkhed,

Distt- Yawatmal (MS).

1418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Dated: 20^th February, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank Umarkhed Branch

and their workman, Shri. Punjaram Waghu Wankhede for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/86/2009 (IR(B-I))

dated 13.05.2010, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank Umarkhed Branch in

terminating the services of Shri Punjaram Waghu Wankhede w.e.f. 24.03.2009 is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

Case called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. N.W. Almelkar is accidently present today before

the Court. Otherwise both the parties are not responding and attending the Court since 24.02.2015 i.e. near about ten

years. Although, petitioner as well as respondent have filed their respective statement of claim and written statement.

Petitioner has also filed affidavit as evidence and some documents have been filed by the petitioner but petitioner has

not come before the Court to prove these documents as well as contents of the affidavit and statement of claim.

Petitioner is not attending and responding the Court since long back. Meaning thereby, he is not interested to contest

the case. Evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the claim of petitioner. Claim of petitioner is not

proved. so it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank Umarkhed Branch in terminating

the services of Shri Punjaram Waghu Wankhede w.e.f. 24.03.2009 is legal and justified. The workman is not

entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 556.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj केन्रीय लोक जनमाचर् जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a25/2007) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 42011/115/2006- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

workmen.

[No. L-42011/115/2006- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/25/2007

Date: 07.03.2025.

Party No.1:

The Executive Engineer,

CPWD,

Nasik Central Division, Govt. Security Printing

Press Area,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1419

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri Balaji S. Jadhav,

Krushna Nagar, Mudhked,

Teh. Mudhked – 431806

Nanded.

AWARD

(Dated: 07^th March, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) 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 CPWD and their workman Shri. Balaji Shankarrao

Jadhav for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/115/2006 (IR(DU)) dated 03.05.2007, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether there is employer-employee relationship between the management of CPWD and the

claimant Shri Balaji Shankarrao Jadhav? If yes, whether the action of the management in terminating

his services w.e.f. July, 2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

Case called out. Both the parties are absent. Both the parties are not responding and attending the Court

since 23/10/2015. Although, petitioner and respondent have filed their respective statement of claim and written

statement. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner has not come before the Court to prove the

contents of the affidavit as well as the contents of the statement of claim. No other evidence has been adduced by the

petitioner till date. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he does not want to contest

the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management in terminating his services w.e.f. July, 2005 is legal and justified. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 557.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj

क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीर् बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (vkbZ Vh dsl ua a03/1994 lh vkbZ ,l ua

54/2014 ) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/96/93- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2025

S.O. 557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. IT Case No. 3/1994,CIS No. 54/2014) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Baroda

Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/96/93- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

1420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Presiding Officer

Rekha Bhargava, RJS (DJ Cadre)

Central IT Case No.

3/1994

CIS No.

54/2014

Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh dk vkns'k dzekad

,y&12012@96@93& vkbZ-vkj-¼ch&1½ fnukad 19-07-1993

&&&

Jh jkl fogkjh 'kekZ iq= Jh foV~Bynkl 'kkL=h] loksZRre vkS"k/kky;] ctfj;k] lokbZ ek/kksiqj }kjk HkVukxj Hkou]

vkn'kZ uxj&,] lokbZ ek/kksiqjA

&&& izkFkhZ

v/;{k] cM+ksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] lokbZ ek/kksiqj

¼vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dk cM+ksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad

esa foy; gks tkus ds dkj.k ½

&&& vizkFkhZ

izkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh vkj0lh0 tSu

vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls % Jh :fiu dkyk

Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je ea=ky; dh mijksDr vkKk dzekad ls fuEu vuqlwph dk fookn vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq bl vf/kdj.k

dks izkIr gqvk gS A

"Whether the action of the management of Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Sawai Madhopur in terminating

the services of shri Ras Bihari Sharma, Clerk-Cum-Cashier w.e.f. 21-5-90 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse is'k dj vfHkdFku fd;k gS fd mldh fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ cSad esa 20-6-83

dks DydZ&de&dSf'k;j ds in ij gqbZ FkhA vizkFkhZ us fnukad 21-5-90 ds vkns'k }kjk izkFkhZ dks vuqfpr o voS/k rjhds ls

lsokeqDr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ dk dFku gS fd og 11-2-89 dks viuh vLoLFkrk ds dkj.k izkFkZuk i= nsdj lokbZek/kksiqj vk

x;k Fkk vkSj yxkrkj vLoLFk jgus ds dkj.k M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gks ldk] ftlds fy;s mlus le;≤ ij vodk'k

izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;s fdUrq mldk vodk'k Lohd`r ugha fd;k x;kA fnukad 11-6-91 dks izkFkhZ dks jftLVMZ Mkd ls

mldk lsokeqfDr vkns'k fnukad 21-5-90 izkIr gqvkA mDr vkns'k ls iwoZ mls dfFkr vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-90 izkIr ugha

gqvk D;ksafd mlus fnukad 15-2-89 dks viuk vkokl cny fy;k Fkk ftldh lwpuk le; ij cSad dks ns nh Fkh fdUrq

tkucw>dj cSad }kjk iqjkus irs ij i= O;ogkj fd;k x;kA pwafd izkFkhZ ogka jgrk gh ugha Fkk blfy;s i= ysus ls euk

djus dk iz'u gh iSnk ugha gksrkA bl izdkj mls dHkh Hkh vkjksi i= dh rkehy ugha gqbZ vkSj iz'kklu us v[kckj esa bl

ckcr~ dksbZ lwpuk Hkh izdkf'kr ugha dh vkSj ,drjQk tkap dk;Zokgh dj mls lsokeqDr dj fn;kA lsokeqfDr ls iwoZ izkFkhZ

dks O;fDrxr lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;kA izkFkhZ dks ;wfu;u dk inkf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k 'kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds mn~ns';

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1421

ls lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA inkf/kdkjh cuus ds ckn mldk 10 ckj LFkkukarj.k Hkh blh mn~ns'; ls fd;k x;k FkkA var esa

lsokeqfDr vkns'k dks vikLr dj fiNys osru lfgr lsok esa cgky fd;s tkus o lsok dh fujUrjrk ds lkFk lHkh ykHk

fnyk;s tkus dk vokMZ ikfjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA

foi{kh cSad dh vksj ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc is'k dj izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr o LFkkukarj.k ds rF; dks Lohdkj

djrs gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ fulwjk 'kk[kk esa fnukad 20-1-89 ls dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj fnukad 11-2-89 ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk

ds vuqifLFkr gks x;kA izkFkhZ dks ckj&ckj M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ jftLVMZ Mkd ls uksfVl tkjh fd;s x;sA mlds

ckotwn izkFkhZ mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj u gh dksbZ mRrj HkstkA izkFkhZ dks mldh vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa cSad ds deZpkjh o`Un

lsok fofu;e 1982 ds fu;e 22 ds rgr vuq'kklu Hkax djus ds dkj.k mlds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap djkbZ xbZA tkap ds

nkSjku Jfed dks jftLVMZ Mkd ls uksfVl Hksts x;s tks fjQ~;wTM dh fjiksVZ ds lkFk ykSVsA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk Jfed ds

fo:) vkjksi fl) ik;s vkSj vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh us vkns'k fnukad 21-5-90 ds }kjk deZpkjh o`Un lsok fofu;eksa esa iznRr

'kfDr;ksa ds rgr mls lsoki`Fkd dj fn;kA izkFkhZ fcuk lwpuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s viuh M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr

jgk gSA izkFkhZ dks mlds }kjk Hksts i= fnukad 24-2-88 ds vuqlkj crk;s irs ij i= O;ogkj fd;kA mlds ckn mlus irk

cnyus ds laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk cSad dks ugha nhA cSad }kjk izsf"kr uksfVl fjQ;wTM dh fjiksVZ ds lkFk ykSV vk;s rks v[kckj

esa lk;k djokus dh dksbZ vko';drk gh ugha FkhA cSad }kjk tkap izfrosnu Hksts tkus ds ckn Hkh fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa dksbZ

vihy izLrqr ugha dhA Jfed ds LFkkukarj.k dk iz'u bl okn ls lacaf/kr ugha gSA var esa lsokeqfDr vkns'k mfpr ,oa oS/k

gksus ls LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA

izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk fnukad 24-1-96 ds izkFkZuk i= ds tfj;s tkap ls lacaf/kr lwpuk dh jftLVªh ftl LFkku ij

Hksth xbZ] ogka ij izkFkhZ Jfed jgrk gh ugha Fkk] bl fcUnq dks r; djus gsrq vkns’k fnukad 28-7-97 }kjk lk{; dh vuqefr

nh tkus ij izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a Jfed ijhf{kr gqvk rFkk foi{kh cSad dh vksj ls lk{; esa loZJh dY;k.k izlkn caly]

ujflag yky 'kekZ ijhf{kr gq;sA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 07-05-2005 }kjk mHk; i{kksa dh lk{; ds vk/kkj izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk Mkd ysus ls

badkj djuk o vkjksi i= dh izksij rkehy ekuh xbZA vkjksi i= dh izksij rkehy ls iwoZ gh tkap vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr

fd;s tkus] tkap vf/kdkj }kjk foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k dk jksy vnk fd;s tkus] nLrkostksa ij tkap vf/kdkjh us fcuk izekf.kr

fd;s fo’okl fd;s tkus] tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr ugha fn;s tkus o lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij Jfed ds

fo:) dh xbZ ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokgh dks v'kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA

U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns’k fnukad 27-07-2007 }kjk vizkFkhZ vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dk cMksnk jktLFkku {ks=h;

xzkeh.k cSad esa foy; gks tkus ls cM+ksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;kA

vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 7-5-2005 ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k ,l-ch-

flfoy fjV fiVhlu la[;k 6568@2005 is’k dh xbZ ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fnukad 14-05-2007 }kjk

vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk izLrqr fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xbZA ftlds fo:) vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.M

ihB esa Mh-ch- Lis'ky vihy fjV la[;k 1010@2007 is'k dh xbZA ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad

18-02-2008 }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ,dy ihB ds vkns'k fnukad 14-05-2007 dh fdz;kfUofr dks vihy ds fuLrkj.k

rd LFkfxr dj fn;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.M ihB }kjk vkns’k fnukad 11-10-2017 }kjk vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk

izLrqr mDr vihy [kkfjt dh xbZA

tkap dk;Zokgh ds v’kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf"kr gksus ij vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk vkjksi U;k;ky; esa lkfcr djus gsrq lk{;

is’k djus dh izkFkZuk ij U;k;ky; }kjk Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus gsrq lk{; is'k djus dh vuqefr nh xbZA Jfed

ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus gsrq vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls lk{; esa Jh xsank flag 'ks[kkor ijhf{kr gq;s gSa] ftuls izkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh xbZA

izkFkhZ jklfogkjh }kjk viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k esa dFku fd;k gS fd mldh izFke fu;qfDr cSad esa fnukad

20-6-83 dks gqbZ FkhA fnukad 17-10-89 dks feF;k vkjksi i= fn;k x;kA fnukad 15-2-89 dks vLoLFk gksus ds dkj.k M~;wVh

ij mifLFkr ugha gks ldrk FkkA vodk'k gsrq izkFkZuk i= o fpfdRlk izek.k vizkFkhZ laLFkku dks Hksts x;sA vodk’k izkFkZuk

i= o ;wihlh dh jlhn o fpfdRlk izek.k i= dh izfr izn’kZ MoY;w&2 yxk;r 7 gSA lkFk gh vius LFkkukarj.k gsrq

fpfdRlk izek.k i= lfgr ,d izkFkZuk i= fn;k Fkk ftldh izfr izn’kZ MoY;w&9] fpfdRlk izek.k i= izn’kZ MoY;w&10 o

jftLVMZ ,-Mh- jlhn izn'kZ MoY;w&11 gSA lkFk gh dFku fd;k gS fd og dHkh LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr ugha jgk cfYd

vLoLFk gksus ds dkj.k mifLFkr ugha gks ldkA Jfed us dFku fd;k gS fd mls lsokeqDr fd;s tkus ds yxHkx 25 o"kZ

rd csjkstxkj jguk rFkk o"kZ 2014 esa ,d O;kikj izkjEHk djuk tks Hkh ykHk ugha gksus ds dkj.k can djuk iM+k] dFku fd;k

gSA

vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ls ftjg dh xbZA ftjg ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd izn’kZ ,e&1 eq>s dHkh

izkIr ugha gqvkA eSa fnukad 11-2-89 ls vuqifLFkr py jgk Fkk] mlds ckn dgk gS fd vodk'k izkFkZuk i= nsus ds ckn

vuqifLFkr gqvk Fkk] tks izn'kZ MoY;w&1 gS] ftl ij fdlh ikorh ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA ;g izkFkZuk i= ;wihlh ds ek/;e ls

Hkstk Fkk] ftldh jlhn izn'kZ MoY;w&3 gSA esjs izkFkZuk i= vodk'k Lohd`r djus dk vkns'k ugha gqvk FkkA izn’kZ ,e&2 ij

, ls ch esjk irk ugha gS D;ksafd fnukad 4-4-89 dks eSa bl irs ij ugha jgrk FkkA eSa Qjojh 1989 ds ckn fuokl LFkku

cnyus ds laca/k esa lwpuk izca/ku dks nh Fkh] ftldh izfr izn'kZ MoY;w&1 gSA vkjksi i= o"kZ 1991 esa u;s irs ij feyk FkkA

1422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

eSa dHkh tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gqvkA izn'kZ ,e&3@1] 5] 8 eq>s izkIr ugha gqvkA izn'kZ ,e&19 esjh

fu;qfDr gsrq Hkjk x;k izkFkZuk i= gSA ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e&20 esa tks irk vafdr gS ogh irk esjs izkFkZuk i= esa vafdr

gSA izn'kZ ,e&21 ij tks irk fy[kk gS ogh irk gSA izn’kZ ,e&19 eas tks , ls ch irk vafdr gS] mlh ij jgrk gwaA ;g

lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,e&4 yxk;r 12 rd esa tks irs of.kZr gS oks izn’kZ ,e&19 ij ogh irk gSA ;g ogh irs gSa tks

izn'kZ ,e&21 ij , ls ch vafdr gSA eSaus izn’kZ ,e&4 yxk;r 12 esa iksLVy foHkkx }kjk fjQ~;wty dk xyr fjekdZ

yxkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha dh FkhA esjk vodk'k Lohd`r gqvk ;k ugha] irk ughaA eSa chekj FkkA eSa 12 Qjojh

1989 ls dc rd chekj jgk] eq>s ;kn ugha gSA eSaus Bhd gksus ds ckn M~;wVh ij mifLFkfr ugha nh D;ksafd blls igys gh

eq>s izn'kZ,e&17 vkns'k esjs u;s irs ij izkIr gks x;k FkkA izn'kZ ,e&17 ds f[kykQ l{ke vf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy is’k

ugha dhA izn’kZ ,e&11 ls ,e&16 gkftjh jftLVj gSa ftuesa esjh mifLFkfr ntZ ugha gSA eSa fnukad 11-2-89 dks NqV~Vh nsdj

x;k Fkk mlds ckn cSad okyksa us ih dks dksVdj , cuk;k gqvk gSA ;g lgh gS fd esjh lsokeqfDr cSad ds izko/kkuksa ds

vuq:i dh xbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd esjs Dyse o 'kiFk i= esa izn'kZ ,e&17 ds ckjs esa ugha fy[kk x;kA lsokeqfDr vkns'k

eq>s twu esa feyk FkkA esjs ?kj dk [kpZ esjh ifRu flykbZ dk dke djds o esjs }kjk NksVk&eksVk dk;Z djds gksrk FkkA ;g

xyr gS fd eSa vkS"k/kky; ij nckbZ cukus dk dk;Z djrk gksaA ;g lgh gS fd jksx izek.k i= fnukad 15-2-89 dks fn;k

x;kA

vizkFkhZ laLFkku dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg xsankyky us viuh lk{; ds eq[; ijh{k.k eas dFku fd;k gS fd og

vizkFkhZ cSad dh ikjyh] lokbZek/kksiqj 'kkkk esa ofj"B izca/kd ds in ij dk;Zjr gS rFkk o"kZ 1989 esa vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k

cSad ds iz/kku dk;kZy; esa vf/kdkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA izkFkhZ Jfed dks tkjh vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89 esa izLrqrdrkZ

vf/kdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk izkFkhZ dks O;fDrxr :i ls tkurk gwaA vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad dk

foy; dsUnz ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 1-1-2013 ds i'pkr~ cMksnk jktLFkku {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad esa gks x;k gSA izkFkhZ

Jfed fnukad 20-01-89 dks rkRdkyhu cSad dh fulwjk 'kk[kk esa dk;Zjr Fkk rFkk fnukad 11-02-89 ls fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds

vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgk gSA foi{kh cSad }kjk le;≤ ij jftLVMZ i=ksa o vU; ek/;eksa ls izkFkhZ dks dk;Z ij

gkftj gksus gsrq lwpuk,a Hksth xbZA fnukad 4-4-89] 1-8-89] 4-8-89] 9-8-89 dks Hksts jftLVMZ i= tks fjQ~;wty fjekdZ ds

lkFk okfil ykSVs] ftu ij izkFkhZ }kjk fn;k x;k irk vafdr gS] ds i=] izkfIr Lohd`fr jlhns o fyQkQs izn’kZ ,e&1

yxk;r ,e&7 gSA izkFkhZ ds fnukad 11-2-89 ls 17-10-89 rd yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgus ij ,d vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89

izn’kZ ,e&8 tfj;s ;wihlh Hkstk x;kA izn’kZ ,e&9 }kjk tkap djkbZ tkus gsrq eq>s izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;kA

vkjksi i= Mkd foHkkx dh fjQ~;wty fjiksVZ ds lkFk okfil ykSVk] ftldk izn'kZ ,e&10 gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk vusd i=

tkjh djus ds ckn Hkh Jfed tkap esa mifLFkr ugha gqvk vkSj Hksts x;s i= Mkd foHkkx dh fjQ~;wty fjiksVZ ds lkFk

okfil ykSVsA Jfed dk gkftjh jftLVj dh izn'kZ ,e&11 yxk;r ,e&16 gSA tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk tkap fjiksVZ fnukad

28-4-90 izLrqr dj vkjksi fl) ik;s x;s gSaA Jfed dks vkns’k fnukad 21-5-90 ds vkns’k }kjk lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k tks

izn'kZ ,e&17 gSA ftls izkFkhZ us ysus ls badkj fd;k x;kA izn’kZ ,e&18 fyQkQs ij fjQ~;wty dk fjekdZ gSA Jfed dks

mlds }kjk crk;s x;s irs ij gh uksfVlst Hksts x;s gSA Jfed }kjk Hksts x;s dksbZ i= vkfn izn’kZ MoY;w 1 yxk;r 5 dHkh

Hkh foi{kh laLFkku dks izkIr ugha gq;sA izkFkhZ loksZRre vkS"k/kky; ctfj;k esa yxkrkj ykHk dk dk;Z dj jgk gSA

ftjg ds nkSjku xokg xsank flag 'ks[kkor us dFku fd;k gS fd og dHkh fulwjk 'kk[kk esa inLFkkfir ugha jgk

rFkk u gh mlus 'kk[kk dk izkfIr jftLVj ns[kkA izkFkhZ }kjk Hksts x;s i= 'kk[kk esa izkIr gq;s ;k ugha] og ugha crk ldrkA

izn'kZ ,e&1 ls ,e&19 nLrkost mlds }kjk rS;kj ugha fd;s vkSj u gh mlds mu ij gLrk{kj gSA og rks dsoy

izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh ds :i esa c;ku nsus vk;k gSA fulwjk 'kk[kk esa ml le; ds0ih0 caly 'kk[kk izca/kd Fks] ftuls Jfed

}kjk Hksts x;s i= o fpfdRlk izek.k i= izkIr gq;s ;k ugha] ds ckjs esa iwNk Fkk] mUgksaus bldh fjiksVZ nh Fkh] tks eq>s ugha

nh] gSM vkfQl esa v/;{k dks Hksth FkhA og fjiksVZ i=koyh ij is'k ugha gSA izn'kZ MoY;w&4 ij cSad dh eksgj gSA ;g i=

fdl 'kk[kk dks Hkstk vkSj fdlus fy;k] irk ugha gSA izn'kZ ,e&11 ls 16 esa izkFkhZ dks dosy 11 Qjojh dks vuqifLFkr

crk;k gS blds vykok dHkh Hkh vuqifLFkr ugha crk;k x;k gSA Jfed ds loksZRre vkS"k/kky; esa dk;Z djus ds laca/k esa

dksbZ izek.k i= is'k ugha fd;k gS vkSj u gh eq>s bl laca/k esa tkudkjh gS] ;g tkudkjh eq>s izca/kd us nh FkhA

mHk; i{kksa dh cgl lquh xbZA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk nkSjkus cgl dFku fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsokeqfD

vkjvkjch LVkQ lfoZl jsxqys'ku 1982 ds fu;r 30 ds vUrxZr dh xbZ gS tcfd Jfed dks vkjksi i= vjkoyh {ks=h;

xzkeh.k cSad deZpkjh c`Un lsok fu;e 1982 ds vUrxZr fn;k x;k] tks izkjEHk ls gh 'kwU; ekuk tkuk pkfg;s vkSj vizkFkhZ cSad

dh vksj ls u gh lsokfu;e gh izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ Jfed vizkFkhZ ds le{k vihy is’k fd;s fcuk lh/ks gh viuk

fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr mBk ldrk gSA Jfed ds fo:) fcuk iwokZuqefr ds] fcuk vodk’k Lohd`r

djk;s vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS tcfd izkFkhZ }kjk vodk’k ds fy;s vkosnu gh ugha fd;k x;k cfYd izkFkhZ

chekj gksus ds dkj.k M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gks ldk ftlds fy;s vodk'k gsrq fpfdRlk izek.k i= lfgr vkosnu vizkFkhZ

dks izsf"kr fd;s x;s Fks tks cSad dks izkIr gks x;sA mifLFkfr iaftdk izn'kZ ,e&11 ls ,e&16 rd esa Hkh izkFkhZ dh

vuqifLFkfr ugha n’kkZbZ xbZ gSA Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus dk Hkkj fu;kstd ij gS vkSj fu;kstd dh vksj ls izLrqr

lk{; ls Jfed ij vkjksi fl) ugha gksrk gSA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls tks nLrkost is'k gq;s gSa] og vizkFkhZ ds xokg }kjk

u gh tkjh fd;s x;s gSa vkSj u gh muds ckjs esa mls dksbZ tkudkjh gh jgh gS rks ,sls nLrkostksa dks lk{; esa ugha i<k tk

ldrkA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls egRoiw.kZ lk{; tks rkRdkyhu cSad ds 'kk[kk izca/kd o iz/kku dk;kZy; ds vf/kdkjh Fks]

mudks lk{; esa is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dHkh Hkh LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr ugha jgk gS cfYd viuh chekjh ds

dkj.k vuqifLFkr jgk gS ftls viuh lk{; ls o eSMhdy izek.k ls fl) fd;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed 25 o"kZ rd csjkstxkj jgk

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1423

gS rFkk izkFkhZ ds xsuQqy jkstxkj esa jgus dks fl) djus dk Hkkj vizkFkhZ ij gS] tks og fl) ugh adj ik;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ

dh lsokeqfDr dks vuqfpr ,oa voS/k ?kksf"kr dj fiNyk iw.kZ osru ,oa HkRrs e; ,fj;j fnyk;s tkosA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk

vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s gSa &

1- 1999¼81½ ,Q,yvkj 188 lqizhe dksVZ] uhrk dify’k cuke yscj dksVZ o vU;A

2- 1999 ¼6½ ,l,yvkj 740 bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky;] ';kelqanj feJk cuke yscj dksVZ

3- 2011¼129½ ,Q,yvkj 787 lqizhe dksVZ] dksy bf.M;k fyfeVsM cuke vuark 'kkg o vU;A

4- 1984 ysc vkbZ lh 1694 lqizhe dksVZ t;Hkxoku cuke ,-lh-lh- cSad fy0

5- 2004 ¼103½ ,Q,yvkj 39 fganqLrku isVªksfy;e dkW0 fy0 cuke ;’koar jsMdj o vU;A

6- 2008¼3½ MoY;w ,y lh 157 nsoh flag cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0 o vU;A

7- 1997¼1½ lh,yvkj 361 vkuan panz izLVh cuke mMhlk ekbfuax dkW0 fy0 o vU;A

8- 1971¼23½ ,Q,yvkj 273 lqizhe dksVZ] cjsyh bySDVªhflVh lIykbZ dkW0 cuke Jfed

9- 2019¼160½ ,Q,yvkj 717 iwj.kpan cuke MhVhlhA

10- 1981 MoY;w,y,u ¼;wlh½457 ve`ryky cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0

11- 2019¼161½ ,Q,yvkj 850 MhVhlh cuke jktohj flag

12- 2000 ,lhlhlh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 85 lqizhe dksVZ] gjn~okjh yky cuke LVsV vkWQ ;wih o vU;A

13- 2003¼4½ ,y,y,u 804 jes’k dqekj cuke vkj,lvkjVhlh

14- 2014¼6½ lqizhje 243 j?kqohj flag cuke gfj;k.kk jksMost

15- 2012¼3½ ,llhlh178 d`".kdkar ch ijekj cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;A

16- 2009 ¼1½ ,y,u,u 477 ,e0ih0 LVsV bySfDVªd cksMZ o vU; cuke ,l-ds- ;kno

17- 2015¼1½ ,llhlh ¼,y ,.M ,l½ 251 NSy flg cuke ,ethch xzkeh.k cSad ikyh o vU;A

18- 1997¼1½ MoY;w ,y lh 734 Nhrjey cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0 o vU;A

19- 1999¼2½ vkj,yMoY;w 1197 Hkaoj flag cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt0

20- 2013 ¼139½ ,Q,yvkj 541 lqizhe dksVZ] nhikyh qxqaMq lokZls cuke dzkafrtwfu;j v/;kidA

vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls mlds fo}ku izfrfuf/k }kjk cgl dh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk cSad }kjk tkjh uksfVlst dks

ysus ls badkj fd;k gSA Jfed ds uksfVl fjQ~;wTM fjiksVZ ds lkFk ykSVs gS rFkk U;k;kf/kdj.k us Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj

fd;k gSA Jfed }kjk irk cnys tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk vizkFkhZ cSad dks ugha nh xbZ vkSj u gh cSad dks feyhA izkFkhZ

Jfed fcuk lwpuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s viuh M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgk gS tks vizkFkhZ cSad ds lsokfu;e deZpkjh

lsoko`Un fofu;eksa ds rgr fu;ekuqlkj lsoki`Fkd fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg us Hkh Jfed dh

fnukad 11-02-89 ls lsoki`Fkd fd;s tkus rd dh vof/k esa fcuk iwoZ lwpuk o fcuk vodk'k Lohd`r djk;s vuqifLFkr jguk

fl) fd;k gSA Jfed dh vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa mifLFkr iaftdk izn’kZ ,e&11 yxk;r ,e&16 iznf'kZr gqbZ gS rFkk

Jfed dks tkjh uksfVlst Hkh iznf'kZr gq;s gSa ftlls lkfcr gS fd Jfed dks laiw.kZ tkudkjh gksus ds ckotwn uksfVl ugha

fy;s x;s vkSj u gh viuh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvkA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;k tkosA

vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;s x;s gSa&

1- 1995¼70½ ,Q,yvkj 789 LVsV vkWQ ;wih cuke ,-ds- feJkA

2- ¼1991½1 ,llhlh 588 ;wfu;u vkWQ bfM;k o vU; cuke eks- jetku [kkaA

3- ¼2008½11 ,llhlh 502 fgekpy izns'k VªkaliksVZ dkW- cuke ds-lh- jkBhA

4- ¼1996½1 ,llhlh 302 LVsV vkWQ ;wih o vU; cuke v'kksd dqekj flag o vU;A

5- 2001¼88½ ,Q,yvkj 177 uVjktu cuke ihBklhu vf/kdkjh o vU;A

6- 2001¼89½ ,Q,yvkj 1070 tloar flag cuke LVsV vkWQ jkt-

7- ¼2005½7 ,llhlh 597 us’kuy QVhZykbZtj fy-cuke ih-ds- 'kekZ

8- ¼2005½13 ,llhlh 228 ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU; cuke xqyke eksgEen HkV~V

9- flfoy vihy la[;k 480@1973 fu.kZ; fnukad 12-3-1985 'kadjnkl cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k o vU;A

eSaus mHk; i{kksa }kjk fn;s x;s rdksZa ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj’khyu fd;k x;kA

1424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89 izn’kZ ,e&8 esa fnukad 11-02-89 ls yxkrkj fnukad 17-10-89

rd fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh dh vuqKk izkIr fd;s ,oa fcuk iwoZ vodk’k Lohd`r djk;s drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi

gSA mDr vkjksi i= izkFkhZ Jfed dks vjkoyh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad o`Un lsok fofu;e 1982 ds fu;e 30¼1½ ds vUrxZr

nqjkpj.k ekuk gSA mDr vkjksi ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) foHkkxh; tkap dk;Zokgh djrs gq;s tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk

mDr vkjksi fl) ik;s tkus ij vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk vkns'k fnukad 21-05-1990 izn'kZ ,e&17 }kjk vkjvkjch LVkQ lfoZl

jsxqys’ku 1982 ds fu;e 30 ds vUrxZr lsoki`Fkd ds n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-89 ds

laca/k esa dh xbZ ?kjsyw tkap dk;Zokgh dks U;k;kf/kdj.k ds vkns'k fnukad 7-5-2005 }kjk v'kq) ,oa vuqfpr ?kksf"kr fd;k

x;k gSA vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) mDr vkjksi fl) djus gsrq lk{; is’k djus dh vuqefr ekaxs tkus ij lk{; is'k

djus dh vuqefr nh xbZ gSA vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus gsrq Jh xsank flag 'ks[kkor ijhf{kr

gqvk gSA nkSjkus cgl izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a fu;kstd

ij gS vkSj vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls Jfed ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi fl) ugha gksrs gSa D;ksafd tks

nLrkost lk{; esa is'k gq;s gSa muds ckjs esa xokg dks dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS vkSj u gh mlds }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ

izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2004 (103) FLR 39 Hindustan petroleum Corp. vs

Yashwant rekkar & ors., 2008(3) WLC 157 Devi singh vs State of Raj., 1997 I CLR 361 Ananda Chandra

brusty vs Orissa Mining Corp. Ltd. & ors. esa fofHkUu ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fofuf’pr fd;k x;k gS fd

vkjksih ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a fu;kstd dk gSA fu;kstd dh vksj ls tks lk{; xsnk

flag 'ks[kkor ijhf{kr gqvk gS mlds }kjk viuh izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd og fulwjk 'kk[kk esa dHkh

inLFkkfir ugha jgkA fulwjk 'kk[kk dk i= izkfIr dk jftLVj dHkh Hkh ugha ns[kkA izn'kZ ,e&1 yxk;r ,e&19 dksbZ Hkh

nLrkost mlds }kjk rS;kj ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u gh mu ij mlds gLrk{kj gS vkSj bu nLrkostksa ds laca/k esa O;fDrxr

tkudkjh ugha gksuk crk;k gSA mlds }kjk dFku fd;k gS fd og tkap ds nkSjku izLrqrdrkZ vf/kdkjh Fkk vkSj blh vk/kkj

ij c;ku ns jgk gS tcfd fulwjk 'kk[kk esa rRle; ds-ih- caly 'kk[kk izca/kd gksuk crk;k gSA vr% vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls

tks lk{; is’k gqbZ gS mls nLrkostksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha jgh gS vkSj u gh mlds }kjk oks nLrkost tkjh fd;s

x;s gSa tcfd Jfed }kjk viuh lk{; ds nkSjku viuh vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa eSMhdy izek.k i= ,oa lwpuk,a vizkFkhZ cSad

dks Hkstuk crk;k gS ftudh izfr;ka Hkh U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k lk{; ds nkSjku iznf’kZr gqbZ gSaA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk Jfed

dh vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk vizkFkhZ cSad dks izkIr gksus ls badkj fd;k gS ysfdu vizkFkhZ cSad dh vksj ls tks

xokg is’k fd;k x;k gS og rRle; fulwjk 'kk[kk esa inLFkkfir ugha Fkk vkSj Jfed ij fulwjk 'kk[kk esa fnukad 11-2-89 ls

vuqifLFkr jgus dk vkjksi gS vkSj Jfed }kjk dksbZ lwpuk,a Hkh cSad dks Hksth xbZ gks rks bl laca/k esa fulwjk 'kk[kk esa

inLFkkfir dksbZ deZpkjh gh crk ldrk Fkk tcfd vizkFkhZ lk{kh Jh xsank flag us i= izkfIr dk jftLVj Hkh dHkh Hkh ns[ks

tkus ls badkj fd;k gSA Jfed }kjk viuh vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa lwpuk,a vizkFkhZ cSad dks tfj;s ;wihlh Hksth xbZ gSa] tks

izn’kZ MoY;w&3] 4] 5 MoY;w&8 o MoY;w&11 U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k iznf’kZr gqbZ gSa rFkk vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa eSMhdy

izek.k i= izn’kZ MoY;w&2] MoY;w&6] 7 o MoY;w&10 is’k gqvk gS] tks l{ke fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s gSaA

izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2019¼160½ ,Q,yvkj 717 iwj.k pan cuke MhVhlh esa ekuuh; nsgyh mPp

U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB }kjk Jfed ds lsoki`Fkd vkns’k ds vuqeksnu izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 33¼2½¼ch½ dks Lohdkj fd;s

tkus ds ,dyihB ds vkns’k dks izca/ku }kjk fo’oluh; Lora= lk{; is’k ugha djus ds vk/kkj ,dyihB ds vkns'k dks

vikLr fd;k x;k gSA U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1981 MoY;w ,y ,u ¼;w lh½ 457 jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB }kjk ;g

fofu’p; fn;k gS fd ;fn dksbZ nLrkost ekeys ls lacaf/kr rF; dks lkfcr djus gsrq is’k fd;k tkrk gS rks mlds ys[kd

dks izLrqr fd;k tkuk pkfg, ;k mlds laca/k esa mldk gyQukek fn;k tkuk pkfg;s ysfdu gLrxr ekeys esa tks nLrkost

Jfed ds fo:) vkjksi lkfcr djus gsrq is'k fd;s x;s gSa mudks tkjh djus okys fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks lk{; esa is'k ugha

fd;k x;k gS vkSj tks lk{; esa xokg is'k gqvk gS mlds }kjk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mls bu nLrkostksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ

O;fDrxr tkudkjh ugha gSA tcfd Jfed }kjk viuh vuqifLFkfr ds laca/k esa lwpuk,a vizkFkhZ cSad dks Hksts tkus o

vuqifLFkfr ds ckcr~ eSMhdy izek.k i= is'k fd;s x;s gSaA ftuds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk ldrk fd Jfed LosPNk ls

vius drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgk gksA vr% fu;sktd dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ls Jfed ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vuqifLFkfr dk

vkjksi fl) ugha gksrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ Jfed ds fo:) tkjh lsoki`Fkd vkns’k fnukad 21-5-90 vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksus

ls vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2013 ¼139½ ,Q,yvkj 541 nhikyh xqaMq lokZls cuke dzkafrtwfu;j v/;kid o

vU; izLrqr djrs gq;s dFku fd;k gS fd Jfed xsuQqy ,EiykW;esaV esa jgk gks ;g fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a vizkFkhZ ij gS

tks og fl) ugha dj ik;k gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd Jfed 25 o"kZ csjkstxkj jgk gSA

izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk viuh lk{; ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk o"kZ 2014 esa O;kikj izkjEHk fd;k ysfdu mlesa ykHk

ugha gksus ds dkj.k can djuk iM+k tcfd bl laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha dh gS fd mls O;kikj ds nkSjku dksbZ

ykHk ugha gksus ds dkj.k O;kikj can djuk iM+k gksA ftjg ds nkSjku Hkh Jfed us Lohdkjk gS fd mlds }kjk ?kj [kpZ iRuh

ds }kjk flykbZ dk;Z djds o mlds }kjk NksVk&eksVk dk;Z djds fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA izkFkhZ Jfed dk bl 25 o"kZ dh

vof/k ds nkSjku iw.kZr;k csjkstxkj ugha jgk gS cfYd mlds }kjk NksVk&eksVk dk;Z fd;k tkuk rFkk O;kikj Hkh 'kq: fd;k

tkuk Lo;a lk{; ds nkSjku dFku fd;k gSaA fdlh Hkh f'kf{kr O;fDr dk ,d yEch vof/k rd csjkstxkj jguk vLokHkkfod

gSA bu lHkh rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq;s izkFkhZ Jfed dks cSd ostst ds :i esa 40 izfr'kr jkf'k fnyk;k tkuk

U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa eas izfrikfnr fl)kar gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa

,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUurk j[kus ds dkj.k gLrxr ekeys esa pLik ugha gksrs gSaA

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1425

mijksDr foopsu ds QyLo:i izdj.k esa fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

dsUnzh; vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k] t;iqj ¼js[kk HkkxZo½ U;k;k/kh'k

vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 13-12-2024 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;k tks Hkkjr ljdkj dks

izdk'kukFkZ fu;ekuqlkj Hkstk tkosA

नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 558.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (04/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/17/2014- vkbZ vkj (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2014) 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-12012/17/2014/- 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.04/2014

Registered on:-22.04.2014

Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Badri Nath Sharma, C/o Sh. R. K Singh Parmar, Punjab INTUC, 211-L, Village Brari,

PO Pratap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar, Punjab.

-------- Applicant

Versus

Punjab National Bank, Regional Collection Cetnre, 2^nd 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-12012/17/2014 (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:-

1426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whether action of termination of service o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 02.09.2013 by the

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

entitled to and from which date?”

Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the he served w.e.f. 01.01.2005 to 01.09.2013 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 02.09.2013, 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 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.

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 till 30.09.2013 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:-

In order to prove case, applicant filed his affidavit WW1 along with documents W1 (account statement) and

W2 (ID 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 her 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 Applicants:

While arguing the case, ld. counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was working as cheque

collector since 01.01.2005 till 01.09.2013. He reported on 02.09.2013, 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:

On the other hand. ld. counsel for respondent contended that in this case, workman was serving w.e.f.

01.01.2005 as cheque collector with the bank management and he used to collect and deliver the daily dak till

01.09.2013. 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1427

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

Findings:

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. 01.01.2005 and

continuously worked till 01.09.2013 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) 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.”

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.

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 01.09.2013. If we

take one year prior to 01.09.2013 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 01.09.2013 as he was receiving regular wages from 2005 till 2013 is proven as per

statement of workman WW1. It is added here that the applicant worked as cheque collector w.e.f. 01.01.2005.

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".

1428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

intermittently.

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 8 years and therefore compensation of Rs.8 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 8 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. 1,33,000/- 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, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 559.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; र्ंडीगढ़- II ds iapkV (20/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (बी-I)-45]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.20/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-45]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).

ID No.20/2018

Registered on:-14.08.2018

Maya w/o Sh. Sanjay R/o H.No.182, Village Jui Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani.

-------- Applicant

Versus

The Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhiwani, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani.

----Management

Present:-

Mr. Keshav Verma, AR for applicant.

Sh. S K Gupta, AR for management.

Award : 06.03.2025

Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the she served w.e.f. 05.10.2014 to 16.11.2017 with

State Bank of Patiala (now State Bank of India) as sweeper. On 17.11.2017, the applicant reported for duty as usual

but was told verbally that her services are not required henceforth without giving him in writing. The work and

conduct of the applicant was quite satisfactory. The applicant was drawing Rs.3900/- per month as wages on the date

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1429

of her termination. The management had retained juniors to the applicant in service and who are continuing in service

in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter called as ID Act). It is maintained that the

management is an industry and the applicant is a workman as defined under 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 she be

reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.

Notice of the claim petition was also given to the management, who filed reply thereof, maintaining therein

that the applicant was never appointed by the management as part time sweeper. The applicant was never issued any

appointment letter by the management. The applicant was engaged for menial work as per requirement of the office

and her wages were paid as per the work done by her on day to day basis. The services of the applicant were never

dismissed, terminated or retrenched by the management as the applicant was never employed by the respondent on

regular basis and no appointment letter was ever issued to the applicant. The applicant had not completed 240 days of

service continuously in any of the preceding year. The branch manager has no power or authority to appoint any

person. The bank has its own rules and regulations of appointment in the bank. No junior to the workman has been

retained by the management. The workman does not fall within the definition of the workman as defined under the ID

Act. It is prayed that the claim may be dismissed.

Evidence of the parties:-

In order to prove case, applicant filed her affidavit WW1/A and closed her evidence on 02.01.2020.

Thereafter, respondent have examined Sh. Mohit Dalak, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, Jui, Bhiwani

(Haryana) as MW1, who tendered her affidavit as MW1/A. Beside this, Mr. Babu Lal, Branch Manager, SBI Main

Branch, Jui came in the Court and placed on record his affidavit and made statement that attendance register of the

workman is not maintained by the management. In his affidavit, he also stated that the workman was paid her wages

at daily rates for the number of days she had worked. Thereafter, ld. counsel for management closed evidence on

15.03.2023 on behalf of management and the matter was fixed for arguments.

Submissions of Applicants:

While arguing the case, ld. counsel for the applicant contended that applicant was working as sweeper w.e.f.

05.10.2014 till 16.11.2017. After the applicant, Mr. Manoj was working as sweeper, who was engaged through

contractor. No compensation and notice of termination was given to the applicant. No chargesheet or inquiry

proceedings were conducted against the applicant. The branch was cleaned everyday by the applicant and nobody was

doing the work of sweeper during the tenure of applicant. He further contended that the workman had completed 240

days of service in the preceding year prior to her retrenchment and requested that the workman is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

Submissions of Respondents:

On the other hand. ld. counsel for respondent contended that the applicant was never appointed by the

management as part time sweeper. The applicant was never issued any appointment letter by the management. The

applicant was engaged for menial work as per requirement of the office and her wages were paid as per the work done

by her on day to day basis. The services of the applicant were never dismissed, terminated or retrenched by the

management as the applicant was never employed by the respondent on regular basis and no appointment letter was

ever issued to the applicant. The applicant had not completed 240 days of service continuously in any of the preceding

year. The branch manager has no power or authority to appoint any person. The bank has its own rules and

regulations of appointment in the bank. No junior to the workman has been retained by the management. The

workman does not fall within the definition of the workman as defined under the ID Act. It is prayed that the claim

may be dismissed. Management has also placed on record written arguments prepared by ld. counsel for management.

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

Findings:

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. 05.10.2014 and

continuously worked till 16.11.2017 as sweeper. This fact has been admitted by Mr. Mohit Dalak (Deputy Manager)

MW1 in his cross examination, wherein, he has stated that workman had worked from 05.10.2014 to 16.11.2017

continuously. Nobody was doing the work of sweeping during the tenure of applicant, who was doing the work of

sweeping. However, no appointment letter was issued to any sweeper as per the record. In plain words the claimant

was performing her duties as labourer/unskilled worker. She was not in supervisory or administrative post requiring

him to perform only administrative post requiring her to perform only administrative duties. While interpreting

Section 2(S) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devinder Singh V/s Municipal Council, Sanaur AlR 2011

Supreme Court 2532, has observed as follows:-

1430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"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.”

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.

Workman has claimed that at the time of her removal, she was getting Rs.3900/- per month and she had

worked 240 days prior to her termination. Workman in her cross examination has admitted that bank did not pay

monthly salary instead payment was made on the basis of the working days. Workman has also placed on record

vouchers for the period during which the applicant served with the bank, however, these vouchers were not get

exhibited, but these vouchers has been relied upon by the workman, which shows that she was paid on the basis of the

working days for the services rendered by her. However, she had completed 240 days prior to her termination as per

own admission of Mr. Mohit Dalak, MW1. From the cross examination of Mr. Mohit Dalak, MW1, it emerges that

workman had worked continuously from 05.10.2014 to 14.11.2017. This witness had also admitted that no

compensation and notice was given to the workman. He has also stated that in place of Maya Devi, Mr. Manoj Kumar

was engaged through contractor. Thus it is clear that there was violation of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act.

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 she worked continuously for a period of 240 days prior to her

termination of her services by respondent on 16.11.2017. It is proved as per statement of Mr. Mohit Dalak, MW1. It is

added here that the applicant worked as sweeper w.e.f. 05.10.2014 till 16.11.2017 intermittently. Admittedly, in this

case, applicant was not paid retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F of the ID Act and in place of her, Mr.

Manoj Kumar was engaged in place of applicant as sweeper. Thus, there was violation of Section 25F and 25G 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 she 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 she was working on temporary

basis intermittently.

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 3 years and therefore compensation of Rs. 3

lac be awarded to the workman in view of the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts.

To support this view, ld. counsel for applicant relied upon the judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed in Civil Appeal

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1431

No. 10957 of 2013 titled as B.S.N.L. Versus Bhurumal. However, the case law cited by the ld. counsel for appellant

is not applicable as the workman in said case was lineman and has claimed that he has worked for 15 years of service,

but was able to prove service of 3 years, and therefore was gratned Rs.3 Lakh as compensation keeping in view that

he was rendering technical service of lineman. However, in the present case, the workman was working intermittently

as sweeper and her duties does not include any technicality.

13.

It is added here that in the present case workman has intermittently worked for about 3 years as sweeper 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.50,000/- 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, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 560.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससच सन जसक्योठरटी सर्वचसेि सवे, परमार नगर नं.3, प र्े; मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संर्ार जनगम जलजमटेड डीटीओ

कंपाउंड, िीपीओ के पास, अिमिनगर; उप जडवीिन इंिीजनयर,भारत संर्ार जनगम जलजमटेड, कोपरगांव, अिमिनगर, के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सोनवर्े रािेि वसंत, कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट श्रम न्यायालय,

अिमिनगर, पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या Reference (IDA) No. 27/2019(CNR No. MHLC160000832019)को िैसा

दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-77- vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award Reference (IDA) No. 27/2019 (CNR No. MHLC160000832019) of the

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

to M/s. Sun Security Services Survey, Parmar Nagar No.3, Pune ; The General Manager,

Bharat

Sanchar

Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound, Near GPO, Ahmednagar; Sub. Divl. Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Kopargaon , Ahmednagar, and Shri Sonawane Rajesh Vasant, Worker, which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-77- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar)

Reference (IDA) No. 27/2019

(CNR No. MHLC160000832019)

M/s. Sun Security Services,

Survey No. 67, 1st floor, Parmar Nagar No.3,

Pune 411013.

1432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound

Near GPO, Ahmednagar 414002

Sub. Divl. Engineer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Kopargaon Dist.: Ahmednagar 414002

... First Party

Vs.

Sonawane Rajesh Vasant

C/o.: Datta Mandir Road,

Gandhinagar, Po.: Kopargaon,

Tal.: Kopargaon

Ahmednagar 414002.

… Second Party

AWARD

( Date: 19-07-2022)

1. This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi vide referral order dated 7-3-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party

Rajesh Vasant Sonawane was dismissed from services. The reference was made to decide issue 1.

whether the action taken by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2.

Does he deserves to reinstate with full back wages and continuity in service ?

2. After receipt of said reference this court issued notice to second party Rajesh Vasant Sonawane.

However, notice was returned back with remark (deceased). Thereafter no any legal heir or Advocate

came forward and filed any Statement of Claim before Court. Therefore, this court could not reached to

conclusion or record any finding on both issues regarding fairness proceedings and issue of

reinstatement alongwith consequential benefits. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order-

AWARD

1. The reference is answered in the negative and disposed off for want of claim.

2. Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of

Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer,

Ahmednagar

Date : 19.07.2022

नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 561.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार प्रबंिक, मेससच पेजस्ट्टका लेबर सर्वचसेि प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, अभ्य िय िाउससंग सोसाइटी, वानवाड़ी, प र्े; मिाप्रबंिक,

भारत संर्ार जनगम जलजमटेड डीटीओ कंपाउंड, िीपीओ के पास, अिमिनगर; उप जडवीिन इंिीजनयर,भारत संर्ार जनगम

जलजमटेड, कोपरगांव, अिमिनगर, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री कर्डचले संतोर् रामिास, कामगार, के बीर्

अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट श्रम न्यायालय, अिमिनगर, पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या (Reference(IDA)No.63/2018 (CNR

No. MHLC160004642018)को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-78- vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1433

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA)No.63/2018 (CNR No. MHLC160004642018) of the

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

to The Manager, M/s. Pestika Labour Services Pvt. Ltd., Abhudaya Hsg. Society, Wanwadi, Pune; The

General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound, Near GPO, Ahmednagar; Sub.Divl. Engineer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Kopargaon , Ahmednagar, and Shri Kardile Santosh Ramdas, Worker, which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-78- IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar)

Reference (IDA) No. 63/2018

(CNR No. MHLC160004642018)

The Manager,

M/s. Pestika Labour Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.11, Survey No.52/2, Abhudaya Hsg.

Society, Wanwadi,

Pune 411040.

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

D.T.O. Compound, Near G.P.O.

Ahmednagar 414001.

Sub Divl Engineer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Tal.: Pathardi, Ahmednagar

... First Party

Vs.

Kardile Santosh Ramdas

Rajuri Kolyachi, Tal.: Jamkhed,

Ahmednagar 414001.

… Second Party

:AWARD:

( Date: 5-11-2022)

1. This reference is referred by the Deputy Director, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi vide referral order dated 25-10-2018 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Santosh

Ramdas Kardile was dismissed from services. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the action taken

by the Company is legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to reinstate with full

back wages and continuity in service ?

2. After receipt of this reference Court has issued notice through registered post A.D. to Second party Santosh

Ramdas Kardile which was duly served at Exh. O-6. However, Second Party did not appear or file any statement

of claim on record. As there is no any evidence given by the second party this court unable to reach any finding.

Therefore, both the issues No.1& 2 fairness of action taken by first party and issue of reinstatement alongwith

back wages and other consequential benefits does not survive. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following

order-

AWARD

The reference is answered in the negative and disposed off for want of claim.

Four Copies of this award be sent to the Deputy Director, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of

Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer

Ahmednagar

Date

:05.11.2022

1434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 562.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में, केन्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संर्ार जनगम जलजमटेड डीटीओ कंपाउंड, िीपीओ के पास, अिमिनगर; उप जडवीिन

इंिीजनयर,भारत संर्ार जनगम जलजमटेड, कोपरगांव, अिमिनगर; प्रबंिक, मैससच. सिकायच स्ट्वयं रोिगार संस्ट्था मयाचदित,

केडगांव, अिमिनगर,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री िेख ठरयाि मन्नू, कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट श्रम

न्यायालय, अिमिनगर, पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या (Reference(IDA)No.31/2019 (CNR No.MHLC16000902019)

को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 01.04.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-79-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference (IDA) No. 31/2019 (CNR No. MHLC160000902019)of the

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

to The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound, Near GPO, Ahmednagar; Sub. Divl.

Engineer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Kopargaon, Ahmednagar ; The Manager, M/s. Sahakarya Swyam

Rojgar Sanshta Maryadit, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar, and Shri Shaikh Riyaj Mannu,, Worker, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 01.04.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-79-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar)

Reference (IDA) No. 31/2019

(CNR No. MHLC160000902019)

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. DTO Compound

Near GPO, Ahmednagar 414002

Sub. Divl. Engineer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Kopargaon Dist.: Ahmednagar 414002

The Manager,

M/s. Sahakarya Swyam Rojgar Sanshta Maryadit,

Kedgaon, Tal.: Nagar, Dist.: Ahmednagar

Ahmednagar 414002.

... First Party

Vs.

Shaikh Riyaj Mannu,

Gajanan Nagar,Wadali Road,Srigonda,

Tal.: Srigonda, Ahmednagar 414002.

… Second Party

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1435

AWARD

( Date: 28-09-2022)

1. This reference is referred by the Section Officer, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide referral order dated 8-3-2019 for adjudicating the matter, in which the Second party Shaikh Riyaj Mannu

was dismissed from services. The reference was made to decide issue 1. whether the action taken by the Company is

legal, proper and in accordance with natural justice. 2. Does he deserves to reinstate with full back wages and

continuity in service ?

2. After receipt of this reference Court has issued notice through registered post A.D. to Second party Shaikh Riyaj

Mannu which was duly served on . However, Second Party did not appear or file any statement of claim on record.

As there is no any evidence given by the second party this court unable to reach any finding. Therefore, both the

issues No.1& 2 fairness of action taken by first party and issue of reinstatement alongwith back wages and other

consequential benefits does not survive. Therefore I am inclined to pass the following order-

AWARD

The reference is answered in the negative and disposed off for want of claim.

Four Copies of this award be sent to the Section Officer, Government of India/ Bharat Sarkar Ministry of

Labour/ Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for information and necessary action.

SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer

Ahmednagar

Date :28.09.2022

नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 563.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में,केन्रीय

सरकार मेससच -वेलिी िोसाभाई एंड संस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड जलजमटेड, गोिरेि कोजलज़ीयम, एवरडच नगर के पीछे, सायन

(पूवच), म ंबई, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और कायचकारी अध्यक्ष, पठरविन एवं डॉक वकचसच यूजनयन, म ंबई, के बीर्

अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-2,म ंबई,पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या Ref.no.CGIT-

2/19 of 2019) को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

02.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल - 42011/4/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. no. CGIT-2/19 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/S. VELJI DOSABHAI & SONS PVT. LTD., Godrej Coliseum, Behind Evarard

Nagar, Sion (East),Mumbai , and The Working President, Transport & Dock Workers Union, Mumbai,, which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

[No. L-42011/4/2019-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/19 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

M/S. VELJI DOSABHAI & SONS PVT. LTD.

1436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Godrej Coliseum, 5the Floor, Off,

Eastern Express Highway,

Behind Evarard Nagar,

Sion (East),

Mumbai 400 022.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

(TRANSPORT & DOCK WORKERS UNION)

The Working President,

Transport & Dock Workers Union,

P.D. Mello Bhavan,

P.D. Mello Road,

Carnac Bunder,

Mumbai 400 038.

APPEARANCES:

Party No. 1

Mr. T. Vijay Kumar

Advocate.

Party No. 2

No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 28-02-2025)

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,

Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-42011/4/2019-IR(DU) dated 26.02.2019. The terms of

reference given in the schedule are as follows:

`Whether the demand of Transport & Dock Workers Union for payment of annual

service increment to the employees of M/s. Velji Dosabhai & Sons Pvt. Ltd. as per the provisions

of MOS dated 29.04.2008 signed between Bombay Custom House Agents` Association and

Transport & Dock Workers Union, is fair, legal & justified? If so, what relief the employees of

M/s. Velji Dosabhai & Sons Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to?`

None present for Second Party Union since long even though served by RPAD notice R/O 26.09.2024. The

First Party present by Mr. T. Vijay Kumar Advocate.

Read application filed on behalf of the First Party. Perused the order sheets. It appears that, the present

Reference is of 2019, however the Second Party Union remained absent and not even filed statement of claim and in

absence of pleading, the Reference cannot be proceeded. It seems that, the Second Party Union is not interested to

prosecute the Reference further.

In view of this, the Reference is disposed off for want of prosecution. No order as to costs. The proceeding is

closed.

Hence, I pass the following Order-

ORDER

The Reference is answered in the negative.

ii. The Second Party is not entitled for relief as prayed.

iii. No order as to costs.

iv. The copy of Award be sent to the Government.

Date: 28-02-2025

SHRIKANT K. DESHPANDE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1437

नई दिल्ली, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 564.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अन सरर् में,केन्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, भारत संर्ार जनगम जलजमटेड, िूरसंर्ार जिला, सेक्टर-8, करनाल, िठरयार्ा, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोिकों और श्री राम रतन, कामगार, के बीर् अन बंि में जनर्िचष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरर्-सि-श्रम

न्यायालय-1, र्ंडीगढ़, पंर्ाट(संिभच संख्या 48/2012)को िैसा दक अन लग्नक में दिखाया गया िै,प्रकाजित करती िै िो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल – 40012/57/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]

दिलीप क मार, अवर सजर्व

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, as The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom District, Sector-

8, Karnal, Haryana, and Shri Ram Rattan, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 02.04.2025.

[No. L-40012/57/2012-IR(DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam.

ID No.48/2012

Registered On: 15.01.2013

Ram Rattan S/o Sh. Surat Singh R/o Village Bhaiswal, Tehsil & District-Panipat, Haryana.

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

Versus

The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom District, Sector-8, Karnal, Haryana.

........Management

AWARD

Passed On: 27.01.2025

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/57/2012-IR(DU) dated 08.01.2013, 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 actin of the management of General Manager, BSNL, Karnal in terminating the services of

Sh. Ram Rattan S/o Sh. Surat Singh, Cable Jointer w.e.f. 20.03.2011 is just, fair and legal? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for cross examination of

Workman but none is responding on behalf of workman and the workman himself is not appearing before the

Court for his cross examination. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the management that workman is not

turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

Perused the file and it is found that the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for management is true.

Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for Cross-examination but of no use. Which

denotes that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with

1438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 5, 2025/CHAITRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

no choice except to pass a ‘No Claim Award’. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the

non-prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.

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, 2 vizSy] 2025

का.आ. 565.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

केन्रीय लोक जनमाचर् जवभाग ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योगिक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योगिक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 1 fnYyh ds iapkV (a298/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-46]

सलोनी , उप गनदेशक

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2025

S.O. 565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.298/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No -I Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD and their

workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-I)-46]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI

ID No. 298/2023

Sh. Santosh Kumar & Sh. Samshad through President, All India CPWD Karmchari Union, Babu Lal Ji

Complex, Shop No. 4, Opp. Bust Stand, Gurugram.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

1. The Director General, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The Executive Engineer, CPWD, Electrical Division-81, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi-110003.

3. M/s R.K. Siddhu, 102-B, South Ex-Tower, Masjid Moth, South Extension-2 New Delhi.

…Managements/respondents

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

None for the claimant.

For Management/ Respondent:

None for the management.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : अप्रैल 5, 2025, /र्ैत्र 15, 1947

1439

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter no. ND-25/I-

76/2023-IR dated 01.12.2023 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a

dispute, terms of which are as under:

“Whether the demand of contract workmen Sh. Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Rajinder Prasad,

AC Operator and Shri Samshad S/o MD Jamil, Electrician through All India CPWD Karamchari

Union, for regularization of their services in the establishment of CPWD is legal and/or justified?

And if so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled and what directions are necessary in this

respect?”

2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government directed 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 the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Despite directions so given, Claimant/ union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither the postal

article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services

remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favor of the fact that the above

notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain away from the

proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf on all four dates of hearing. Thus, it is clear that the

workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

In light of the fact that the claimant has not been appearing to pursue his claim, his claim has resulted in No

Dispute Award. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification

under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.

Dated 12.02.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. GORAKHA NATH YADAVA

Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH

YADAVA

Date: 2025.04.15 11:55:09 +05'30'