2510 GI/2025

(1527)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 15]

नई ददल् ली, अप्रैल 20—अप्रैल 26, 2025, िजनवार/चैत्र 30—वैिाख 6, 1947

No. 15]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 20—APRIL 26, 2025, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 30–VAISAKHA 6, 1947

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती है जजससे दक यह ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवदेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 15 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 617.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधाजनक आदेि।

एतद् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, अप्रैल 15, 2025 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनववहन करने के जलए जवदेि में भारतीय

जमिनों/ृोस्ट्टों में सहायक कांसुलर अजधकाररयों के प ृ में इस मंत्रालय के नीचे उजल्लजखत अजधकाररयों की जनयुजि करता

है:

क्रम

सं.

अजधकारी का नाम और ृद

(

सवव

ीी

)

जमिन/ृोस्ट्ट जजसमें सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के प ृ

में जनयुि दकया गया है

रोनक चौधरी, सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारत का महावाजणज्य दूतावास, अटलांटा

सूज़ी वगीज़, वैजिक सहायक

भारतीय दूतावास, मस्ट्कट

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-02052025-262807

CG-DL-W-02052025-262807

1528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

गौरव अग्रवाल, सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारतीय दूतावास, ब्रसेल्स

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(16)]

एस.आर.एच. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2025

S.O. 617.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

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

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

with effect from April 15, 2025:

Sl.

No.

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

Mr. Ronak Choudhary, Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India, Atlanta

Mrs. Susy Varghese, Personal Assistant

Embassy of India, Muscat

Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Brussels

[F. No. T.4330/01/2025(16)]

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

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 618.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधाजनक आदेि।

एतद् द्वारा, सरकार, भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास, दुबई में वीरेि कुमार और जनतेि बहादुर ससह, सहायक

अनुभाग अजधकाररयो को अप्रैल 17, 2025 से सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनववहन करने के

जलए अजधकृत करती है।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(17)]

एस.आर.एच. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 618.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Viresh Kumar and

Shri Nitesh Bahadur Singh, both Assistant Section Officers in the Consulate General of India, Dubai as Assistant

Consular Officers to perform Consular services with effect from April 17, 2025.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2025(17)]

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

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत तथा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 26 माचव, 2025

का.आ. 619.—केन् द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत िज‍ तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ीी जिव गोृाल ससह और ीी जे. िंकर, अजधविाओं को ददल् ली

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृना (केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत मामलों में, तेलंगाना राज्य के हैदराबाद में जस्ट्थत जवचारण

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1529

न्यायालय के समक्ष संजस्ट्थत दकए गए मामलों में और जवजध द्वारा स्ट् थाजृत दकसी अृीलीय या ृुनरीक्षण न् यायालय में इन

मामलों से उद्भूत अृील, ृुनरीक्षण या अन् य मामलों के अजभयोजन का संचालन करने के जलए तीन वषों की अवजध के

जलए अथवा अगले आदेि तक, जो भी ृहले हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक जनयु‍ त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/5/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम ीीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department Of Personnel And Training)

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2025

S.O. 619.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shiv Gopal Singh and

Shri J. Shanker, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of the cases instituted by the

Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the trial courts in the state of Telangana at

Hyderabad and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional court

established by law for a period of three years or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/5/2025–AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 26 माचव, 2025

का.आ. 620.—केन् द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत िज‍ तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ीीमती कगम बागरा और ीी तार तोरम, अजधविाओं को ददल् ली

जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृना (केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत मामलों में, अरुणाचल प्रदेि राज्य के युजृया में जस्ट्थत

जवचारण न्यायालय के समक्ष संजस्ट्थत दकए गए मामलों में और जवजध द्वारा स्ट् थाजृत दकसी अृीलीय या ृुनरीक्षण

न् यायालय में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अृील, ृुनरीक्षण या अन् य मामलों के अजभयोजन का संचालन करने के जलए तीन वषों

की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेि तक, जो भी ृहले हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक जनयु‍ त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/6/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम ीीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2025

S.O. 620.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Kagam Bagra and Shri Tar Torum,

Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting prosecution of the cases instituted by the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the trial courts in the State of Arunachal Pradesh at Yupia

and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional court established by

law for a period of three years or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/6/2025–AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 26 माचव, 2025

का.आ. 621.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ीी िैला कुमार भट, ीी कुलजीत ससह ृ ाजनया, ीी राकेि ससह

स्ट्लाददया, ीी अंकुर राय और ीी भूसृदर ससह चरक, अजधविाओं को ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृना (केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण

ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत मामलों में, जममू-कश्मीर संघ राज्यक्षेत्र के जममू में जस्ट्थत जवचारण न्यायालय के समक्ष संजस्ट्थत दकए

गए मामलों में और जवजध द्वारा स्ट्थाजृत दकसी अृीलीय या ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अृील,

1530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ृुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों के अजभयोजन का संचालन करने के जलए तीन वषों की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेि तक,

जो भी ृहले हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक जनयुि करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/4/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम ीीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th March, 2025

S.O. 621.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Shaila Kumar Bhat, Shri Kuljeet

Singh Pathania, Shri Rakesh Singh Slathia, Shri Ankur Rai and Shri Bhupinder Singh Charak, Advocates as Special

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

(Central Bureau of Investigation) in the trial courts in the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and

appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional court established by law for

a period of three years or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/4/2025–AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 4 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 622.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ीी एस.वी. राजू, एजडिनल सॉजलजसटर जनरल को, अृील सं्‍या

जीए 2/2025, केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो बनाम संजय रॉय (आर. जी. कर हॉजस्ट्ृटल में प्रजिक्षु जचदकत्सक के बलात्संग और

मृत्यु का मामला) के मामले में, केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो की ओर से माननीय कलकत्ता उच्च न्यायालय में और जवजध द्वारा

स्ट्थाजृत दकसी अृील या ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में उि मामले से उद्भूत दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामले में प्रस्ट्तुत

होने के जलए, मामले का जनृटान होने तक या अगले आदेि तक, इनमें से जो भी ृूववतर हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक के प ृ

में (तारीख 27.01.2025 से भूतलक्षी प ृ से) जनयुि करती है।

[फा. सं. 225/3/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम ीीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2025

S.O. 622.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor

General as Special Public Prosecutor (ex-post facto with effect from 27.01.2025) for appearing on behalf of Central

Bureau of Investigation in Appeal number GA 2/2025, in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sanjay

Roy (Rape and murder case of trainee doctor at R. G. Kar Hospital, Kolkata) in the Hon‘ble High Court of Calcutta

and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of the said case in any appellate or revisional court established by

law till the disposal of the case or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/3/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 623.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ीी अनुज टंडन, ीी राहुल ीीवास्ट्तव और ीी आकाि प्रसाद

अजधविा को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद, इलाहाबाद और लखनऊ न्यायृी , लखनऊ के समक्ष ददल्ली जविेष

ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा अन्वेषण दकए गए मामलों से उद्भूत अजभयोजन, अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन्य

मामलों तथा उससे संबंजधत या उसके आनुषंजगक मामलों का संचालन करने हेतु जनयुजि की तारीख से तीन वषव की अवजध

के जलए या अगले आदेि तक, इनमें से जो भी ृहले हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक जनयुि करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/2/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम ीीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1531

New Delhi, the 9th April, 2025

S.O. 623.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Anuj Tandon, Shri Rahul

Srivastava and Shri Akash Prasad, Advocates as Special Public Prosecutors for conducting the prosecution, appeals,

revisions and other matters arising out of the cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central

Bureau of Investigation) before the Hon‘ble High Court of Allahabad at Allahabad and Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for

a period of three years from the date of their appointment or till further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/2/2025–AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 624.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, सुीी मनोरमा कुमारी, अजधविा को माननीय गुवाहटी उच्च

न्यायालय, के समक्ष ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत मामलों से उद्भूत अजभयोजन,

अृील, ृुनरीक्षण और अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने हेतु जनयुजि की तारीख से तीन वषव की अवजध के जलए या अगले

आदेि तक, इनमें से जो भी ृूववतर हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक के प ृ में जनयुि करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/7/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम ीीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th April, 2025

S.O. 624.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagrik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Manorama Kumari, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions and other matters arising out of the cases

instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), before the Hon‘ble Gauhati

High Court, Guwahati, for a period of three years from the date of her appointment or until further order, whichever is

earlier.

[F. No. 225/7/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

संस्ट् कृजत मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 625.—केंद्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में संस्ट् कृजत मंत्रालय के अंतगवत आने वाले जनम नजलजखत कायावलयों जजनमें 80 प्रजतित से

अजधक अजधकाररयों/कमवचाररयों ने सहदी का कायवसाधक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया है, को अजधसूजचत करती है :-

1. इलाहाबाद संग्रहालय, प्रयागराज, उत्तर प्रदेि

2. नव नालन् दा महाजवहार, नालन् दा, जबहार

3. केन् द्रीय जहमालयीय संस्ट् कृजत जिक्षण संस्ट् थान, दाहुुँग, अरुणाचल प्रदेि

4. अधीक्षण ृुरातत् वजवद् का कायावलय, रांची मंडल, रांची, झारखंड

5. अधीक्षण ृुरातत् वजवद् का कायावलय, जोधृुर मंडल, जोधृुर, राजस्ट् थान

6. अधीक्षण ृुरातत् वजवद् का कायावलय, झांसी मंडल, झांसी, उत्तर प्रदेि

1532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. कायावलय अधीक्षण ृुरातत् व रसायनज्ञ, भारतीय ृुरातत् व सववेक्षण, जवज्ञान िाखा, देहरादून

यह अजधसूचना राजृत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से प्रवृत् त होगी।

[फा. सं. ई.13016/1/2024-सहदी]

डॉ. अरजवन्द कुमार, संयु‍ त सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 625.— In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Ministry of Culture

wherein more than 80% officers/staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

1. Allahabad Museum, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh

2. Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda, Bihar

3. Central Institute for Himalayan Culture Education, Dahung, Arunachal Pradesh

4. Office of the Superintending Archaeologist, Ranchi Circle, Ranchi, Jharkhand

5. Office of the Superintending Archaeologist, Jodhpur Circle, Jodhpur, Rajasthan

6. Office of the Superintending Archaeologist, Jhansi Circle, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

7. Office of the Superintending Archaeological Chemist, Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,

Dehradun

This notification shall come into force from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. E.13016/1/2024-Hindi]

Dr. ARVIND KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

ीम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 23 जसतम बर, 2024

का.आ. 626.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

बी. बी. एम. बी. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

सह -

नंबर II, चंडीगढ़ ds iapkV (

)

dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[सं. एल – 23012/45/2004-आईआर (

.एम- II)]

मजणकंदन. एन, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2024

S.O. 626.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.130/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court NO 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of BBMB and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29/08/2024.

[No. L-23012/45/2004– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer

ID No. 130 /2005

Registered on:- 20.07.2005

Upender S/o Sh. Ram Singh, C/o Shri Hem Prabh S/o Sh. Bali Ram, R/o Village Bhayarta, P.O. Chanahan, Teh. &

Distt. Mandi (HP).

….……....Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1533

Versus

Bhakra Beas management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh through its Chairman.

The Chief Engineer, BSL Project Sundernagar Township, Distt. Mandi, (HP).

…..Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed on:- 15.07.2024

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/45/2004-IR(CM-II), dated 07.07.2005, under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the

following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

――Whether the demand of Shri Upender for reinstatement in the services of BBMB, Sunder Nagar is legal and

justified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?

1. The brief facts, related to the case are that the construction of Beas Sutluj Link Project{hereinafter called as

BSL(P)} started in the year 1962 under Beas Control Board, which was constituted on 10.02.1961 with its

headquarter at Sundernagar and this project was under the control of Centre Government, who had been constructing,

maintaining, operating and administrating it through various Boards in different phases. After passing of Pb. Re-

Organisation Act, 1966(hereinafter called ―Re-Organisation Act‖) Beas Control Board was replaced by Beas

Construction Board(hereinafter called as BCB). The workman was employed by Beas Construction Board in 1976.

The workman who was employed in Beas Project(Unit-1) become the employee of Bhakra Beas Management

Board(hereinafter called as BBMB) in pursuance of proviso (1) of Section 80(3) and Section 80(5) of Re-organisation

Act and the workman become the employee of the Centre Government under the management of B.B.M.B. from

15.05.1976. The workman has completed 240 days in every calendar year and was not interrupted till his

retrenchment. The employer made a bulk retrenchment of project employees in the year 1977 and 1978 and also in

stages thereafter till 1984. The workman was also retrenched by the employer on 12.08.1977 on account of reduction

in strength due to part completion of the BSL(P) and re-employment certificate was issued by the office of re-

settlement B.S.L/B.B.M.B. Sundernagar for the re-employment of the retrenched workmen of B.S.L.(P)(BBMB) in

accordance with provision of the Act. After the retrenchment of the workman, thousands of other persons were

appointed secretly by employer, violating Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The employer is also

doing unfair labour practices as defined in Section 2(R)A of the ID Act. Management has also violated the provisions

of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Dispute(Central) Rule, 1957(hereinafter called ―The Industrial Rules‖). By filling

vacant posts, the employer declared some posts as surplus and retrenched the employees working on those posts.

2. It is also maintained that the present workman and other workmen have filed a Civil Writ Petition No.403/1996,

titled as Sant Ram and 87 others Vs. BBMB in the Hon‘ble High Court of Shimla for their re-employment and in the

said writ petition management filed reply dated 16.04.1996 by way of affidavit and admitted that retrenched workmen

are employee of BBMB. The workmen have then withdrew the writ petition and filed civil suits for declaring them as

a retrenched workmen of BBMB before the Sub-Judge, 1^st Class, Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi(HP), on 21.01.1997 and

later on those suits were decided on 05.07.2002 and all plaints were returned to the workmen to be filed before the

competent authority on the basis of which the present proceedings were initiated after referring of the dispute of

workman from the Ministry of Labour on 07.07.2005. Thereafter, management filed writ petition before the Hon‘ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court against the order of Ministry on 07.07.2005 and the same was dismissed on 07.05.2007

and Special Leave Petition filed bearing nos.16939-17007 of 2007 in Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India by the

management was also dismissed on 08.07.2014. It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition of the workman may

kindly be allowed and workman be continued in the service of the management and be regularized and further be

given all the consequential benefits.

3. Management filed written statement, alleging therein that workman is Ex-work charged employee of Beas

Construction Board, which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was

retrenched after completion of the work of BCB in the year 1977. The workman was paid terminal benefits i.e.

retrenchment compensation, gratuity, ex-gratia amount on account of his retrenchment from BCB as per provisions of

ID Act. It is further maintained that BCB and present management are two distinct and separate entities. It is also

maintained that construction of Beas Project was undertaken by the Punjab Govt. Irrigation Department prior to the

re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab on 01.01.1966. After re-organisation the work of BSL(P) was taken

over by the Central Govt. on behalf of partner states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. The Central Govt. constituted

BCB under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act and further stipulated that any component of Beas Project in

relation to which the construction has been completed be transferred by the Central Govt. to Bhakra Management

Board(hereinafter called as BMB) constituted under Section 79(1) of the Re-organisation Act. It is further stated

under Section 80(5) of the Re-organisation Act that BMB would be re-named as BBMB when any component of Beas

Project was transferred under Section 80(6) of the Re-organisation Act. The workman was employed by the BCB.

Thus, the workman never remained the employee of management. However, it is stated that 1093 work-charged and

1534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12 contingent paid employees of Beas Project were sent on job order basis to Ranjit Sagar Dam, Punjab. They were

taken over by the management under the benevolent policy of the Central Govt. as Central Govt. had given directions

to BBMB to absorb these employees. The remaining work-charged employees were not entitled for the said benefit.

Even work-charged employees of the BCB had filed a petition in the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, titled as

Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 SCC 440, in which their claim for absorbing them in

BBMB is not granted instead their retrenchment from BCB was upheld. Remaining averments have been denied and

it is stated that the claim of the workman is hopelessly time barred and the workman has no legal enforceable right to

claim employment in BBMB. It is prayed that claim be dismiss.

4. A replication was also filed by workman contravening the facts taken in written statement as reiterating the facts

as stated in claim petition.

5. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

6. The workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A.

7. The management has filed affidavit of N.M. Jain, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub- Division BBMB Sunder Nagar,

who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.MW1/A and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman.

8. While arguing the case, learned Law Officer for the management contended that initially Beas Control Board was

constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred from Beas

Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, BMB was

constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various works as mentioned in Section 79 itself. Section

80(6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act provides that BMB constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be re-named

as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the BCB

shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project have been so transferred. All the projects under BCB

were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in 1984. Present workman was employed as work charged

employee 1976 and was retrenched on 12.08.1977. All similar work charged employees including the present

workman was engaged by the BCB which ceased to exist in the year 1984 therefore, the workmen cannot be termed

as the employees of the BBMB because there does not exist BCB which was his parent department. Moreover, the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr., 1979 SCC 440

has held that work charged employees were bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected by the management

and also by the award 2-C of the year 1971 before Sh. H.R. Sodhi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh between

workman and employees of the Beas Construction Board, Sunder Nagar and published in the gazette on 15.06.1974 of

the Govt. of India.

9. So far as the claim of the workman regarding re-employment after retrenchment on 12.08.1977 is concerned,

workman was not entitled for re-instatement as in a case under reference no.2-C of 1971 decided by Sh. H.R. Sodhi,

the then Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh, it was held that management in order to establish an industrial peace

and to secure the work charge employees after completing the work can engage after completion of project at any

time within 6 months for the maintenance of staff for project of any work if it is required to those work charged

employees in order to seniority who have put 10 years of service. The relevant portion of para is reproduced as

below:

“It is accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six

months thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or

transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first

be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’ continuous

service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical

fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to

their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected.“

10. Because the present workman had not completed 10 years of service so he is not entitled for re-employment.

Learned representative for the management further contended that in this case workman was retrenched on

12.08.1977 after receiving due retrenchment compensation etc. and now he is claiming re-employment under Section

25-H of the Act and his claim is hopelessly time barred as he has filed the present claim petition on 20.07.2005. To

support this view he has placed reliance in the case titled as Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal,

AIR 2006, Supreme Court 2682, wherein in identical matters Court has not entertained writ petition due to inordinate

delay. In the present case there is a delay of about 27 years. He also relied upon the case titled as Ram Chand Vs. The

BBMB and another, CWP no.2787 of 2018, decided on 03.12.2018(Annexure R-4) where the Hon‘ble Himachal

Pradesh High Court has held that dispute if any ought to be raised within a reasonable period as the ID Act does not

prescribed time limit for referring such dispute. In the present case workman was engaged as Beldar in the year 1976

and was discharged on 12.08.1977 and he has sought re-employment after 29 years which was held to be highly time

barred. Thus, he contended that claim of workman is time barred. Workman was discharged on 12.08.1977 and

thereafter he filed present claim before the Labour Conciliation Officer on 30.11.2005.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1535

11. While arguing the case, learned AR for the workman contended that in this case workman was discharged on

12.08.1977 due to reduction in strength and he was issued discharge certificate by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB

Sundernagar. He referred to Section 25-H of the ID Act which provides re-employment of retrenched workman. He

further has drawn the attention of the Court towards the statement of the workman. He was required to be adjust in

view of under Section 25-G of the Act by the management Discharge Certificate was issued by the Management. He

was not given any employment. While arguing further, learned AR for the workman referred to Rule 77 and 78 of the

Industrial Dispute Central Rule 1957(hereinafter called Industrial Rule). Rule 77 provides maintenance of seniority

list of workman and it states that before any worker is retrenched the appellant-establishment is required to place on

the notice board the seniority list of all the workmen who were to be retrenched but nothing has been done in this

regard before retrenchment of the present worker. She also referred to Rule 78 which provides that as and when any

vacancy incurred then retrenched workmen were required to be given registered notice but nothing was done by the

management. Moreover, question of limitation does not arise as no limitation period has been prescribed under the

Act for seeking relief under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act. Learned AR for the workman

further contended that even reference made by the Government dated 07.07.2005 was challenged by the management

in the Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide Writ Petition No.3100 of 2006 and their writ petition was

dismissed by the Hon‘ble High Court on 07.05.2007. Even SLP filed against the order dated 07.05.2007 was upheld

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in SLP No.16979/2007 dated 08.07.2014.

12. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the workman and also for the

management.

13. The management relied upon mainly in this case on the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another(supra), which

is very material for decision of this case. The said judgment deals with two types of petitioners. First type of

petitioners were employed by the BCB on purely temporary basis and they had also given written undertaking

confirming the term of their appointment. The BCB appointed the first type of petitioners on ad hoc basis with a clear

understanding that they will have no right to be retained in service after the completion of the Beas Project. They are

Engineers, Section Officer, Accounts Clerk, Teacher etc. and they have claimed their parity with other employees

who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan Governments and who were serving on deputation

in connection with the works of the BhakraNangal Scheme.

14.

In respect of these employees, it was held as follow:-

“To sum up, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government. Their

conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to

the benefit of any of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may make

representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this Court to

grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid

rules, including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service

under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be transferred to the services

of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly, the

proposed retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in

articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different and

distinct classes.”

15. As regards, second type of employees i.e. work charged employees the judgment deals in Para 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,

46 and 47 which read as follow:-

“41. A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the

wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees who are

borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of

the work.

42. The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The

work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the

execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come

to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get

any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits

under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.

43. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are

entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from

that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment9 and modification.

The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like the other

petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatory benefits.

44. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were made to

the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of 'last come, first go'

1536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-charged

employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have effect notwithstanding

anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing orders made under the

Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946.

45. There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them, about

26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the workmen

and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

New Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which the work-

charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation proceedings. By reason of section

18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding is

binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they

were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v.

JatinChakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not even necessary, in order to bind the work

men to the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show that they belonged to the union which took

part in the conciliation proceedings, since the policy underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an extended

operation to such settlements. In the instant case, all the 12 unions which represented the workmen on the

work-charged establishment were parties to the conciliation proceedings. The settlement will therefore bind

all the work-charged employees.

46. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial

Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-

charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the

management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the

workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the aforesaid

award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged employees, involving a

burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.

47. Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected between

them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and have

accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974 they are not entitled to any rights apart from

those flowing from the aforesaid settlement and the Award. SLP No.1246 of 1979 which is filed to challenge

the Award and C.M.P. No.2077 of 1979 which is filed for condonation of the delay of over four and half

years caused in filing the SLP shall have to be dismissed.”

16. Thus, from the above observation of Supreme Court it is clear that work charged employees are engaged on a

temporary basis and their appointments are made for the specified work and their service comes to an end on the

completion of work for the sole purpose of which they are employed.

17. Para 43 provides that work charged employees are industrial worker and entitled to the benefit of the provisions

contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even contracts

of employment are open to adjustment and modification. Para 45 as reproduced above further provides that in the

conciliation proceeding it has been held that there were about 36000 work charged employees working on Beas

Project out of them 26000 has already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the

workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner(Central),

New Delhi under Section 12 of the ID Act. The said settlement is binding on all the work charge employees who are

working in the establishment to which the dispute relates. In para 46 it is further stated that apart from the settlement

in the conciliation proceeding an award was made by the CGIT Chandigarh in reference no.2-C in an industrial

dispute between the work charged employee of the Beas Sutlej Project, Sundernagar with which we are concerned

and the management. A consent formula was evolved to which the workmen virtually agreed. In the last para 47 itself

specifically stated that work charged employees are bound by the settlement and award May 15, 1974 and they were

entitled to rights those flowing from the settlement and award.

18. So far as the settlement executed between the work charged employees and management through unions, the

same has not been produced by the management despite opportunity was given to file the same. Thus, adverse

interference can be drawn against them. To support this view, reliance can be placed to the judgment of Hon‘ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court in case held as2001(3) RSJ 382 Ambika Parashad Versus Punjab Urban Planning

and Development Authority Chandigarh and Another wherein it has been held ―that respondent has not

produced record in the Labour Court to prove that Workman has not completed 240 days of service though

application was submitted by the Workman for production of record held that a person in possession of the

best evidence has to produce the same, otherwise adverse inference can be drawn against the said party‖. In

this case also as per order dated 01.05.2024 of this Tribunal. Respondent were asked to produce the settlement arrived

between the 12 union of the work charged employee and management under Section 12 of ID Act before the Regional

Labour Commissioner, New Delhi and all the work charged employee were bound by the said settlement. However,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1537

despite of availing 2-3 opportunities i.e. 20.05.2024, 20.06.2024 and 09.07.2024 the said policy was not produced and

as such adverse inference can be drawn against the management in view of the above law.

19. As regards award passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, the relevant claim of the work

charged employees was regarding their regularization services and the finding given by the Tribunal is as follow:-

―Regulation of Services of the workcharged employees.

It is an un-disputed fact that the entire strength of labour as employed in the Project is workcharged. The

institution of workcharged establishment is not only necessary but sometime unavoidable. These workmen

are engaged on temporary basis and their services are utilized for the execution of a specified work for which

they may be suited. From the very nature of employment the services of such workman automatically come to

an end on the completion of the work. A workcharged employee does not get any relief under the Payment of

Gratuity Act nor is he benefitted by the employees state Insurance Scheme. He does not indeed enjoy any

retiral benefits. Before partition of the country in 1947 it was not usual to have project, construction of

which required a number of years to complete but after constituting ourselves into a democratic Republic

and the Government having taken in hand five year plans for development of the country there are various

schemes involving the construction of works for a period extending over several years as is the case of the

instant Project. It commenced in 1962 and more than 12 years having passed the completion might take

another few years. In such situation it seems reasonable and fair that a workman who has, like a regular

employee, spent the part of his life ranging from 5-10 years upto 20 year, should not be thrown on the road

and must be assured some benefits as are available to regular staff. The other aspect of the matter is that the

employer could not compelled to retain workcharged employees after the work for which the latter had been

engaged is completed, as after all, he was employed before a particular job and the employer, be it the

Government or any of its public undertakings, cannot taken upon itself the responsibility of that workman

for all time to come. It can be well argued that such a workmen should feel happy and content that instead of

remaining un-employed be got employment for a long time.

To assure Industrial peace and economic justice to such class of workmen some balance has in my opinion

to be stuck between the two extremes. It is the duty of the State under the Directive Principles enunciated in

part 4 of the constitution to secure and protect that social order in which justice, social and economic could

be had by all institutions of national life. I fell that it is equally the duty of an adjudicator of industrial

disputes charged with the duty of administering social justice to be guided by the fundamentals contained in

this chapter though he has to bear In mind the limits of the economic capacity of the employer and

Endeavour must have ever be made to secure work for every citizen do in our present economy. It is not

possible to immediately achieve that object. The workman employed by the respondent management are

drawn from different states out of which I am informed about 8/10 thousands are from Punjab about 22000

from Himachal Pradesh and the remaining from the states of Rajasthan and Haryana. Some of the workmen

are from U.P and Bihar and a handful from Kerala. The board hasby and large been consistently following

the Punjab pattern in the matter of wage structure, revision thereof from time to time and grant of dearness

allowance. It is only with regard to categories not appearing in the common Schedule of Rates prepared by

the erstwhile United State of Punjab that the board took its independence decisions on the recommendations

of its own standing committee.Even Himachal Pradesh Government generally followed the Punjab

policy.The state government of Punjab in its wisdom, and I should say rightly has declared that the services

of work charged employees in building and roads branch who had worked for 10 years or more would stand

regularized in the sense that the workmen would be treated at par with those in the regular service of the

state government.The benefit of this announcement was afterwards extended to the employees of its

irrigation branch as well at the workman who held from Punjab continue to stay in their parents state the

services of those who had put in 10 years or more would have been regularized the respondent management

too in pursuance of its policy to follow the Punjab pattern might have regularized the services of at least of

those workmen who had come from Punjab but any such course would have created awkward situation as

the workmen from other States could not be discriminated in this respect.Moreover financial implications

and other complications are involved.

In such circumstances stated aboveI would have directed that the services of those of the workman who have

been continuously employed for more than 10 years should be regularized. But the other problems arising

from such a direction including financial impact on the employer cannot be lost sight of The Central

Government through the board is only managing on behalf of the state of Punjab, Rajasthan Haryana and

Himachal Pradesh who are partners in the venture.Several aspects of the question were discussed with the

workmen and the management in the course of arguments and a formula evolved to which the workman

virtually agreed and I feel that such a solution as stated hereunder is quite just to all the parties provided it is

work out, honestly stated. No doubt,what is referred to me is the matter of regularization of the services of

work charge employees, but the directions that I am issuing in my opinion, amount to only granting lesser

relief than claimed by the workmen. The management can also have no grievance if it wants industrial peace

and is anxious to secure employment to the work-charged employees after the completion of the work. It is

1538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six months

thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or

transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first

be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’ continuous

service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical

fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to

their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected. The workmen have expressed an apprehension that

near the completion of the Project trades of some of them might be changed so that it could be said that a

suitable workman needed for a particular job was not available and an outsider was therefore necessary to be

employed. To protect the workmen against this possible denial of their rights it is further directed that

category or trade of no workman shall be changed within one year preceding the completion of the Project

without his consent in writing and that if any such change without consent is made it will have no

consequence inasmuch as such a workman will be entitled to the job of his earlier trade provided the vacancy

relates to that trade. As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance

staff. I have no reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also

the Central Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or

work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where there is a need for

workmen of those trades.”

20.

A perusal of aforesaid findings made it ample clear that the order has been passed by the then learned Presiding

Officer, CGIT, Chandigarh to maintain industrial peace and to secure employment to the work charged employees

after the completion of the work and it was also held by the learned CGIT thatState Govt. who are beneficiary under

the project and the Central Govt. will make every reasonable effort to get those workmen re-employed at any other

project or work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where there is a need of

workmen of those trades.

21. Admittedly, in this case, no effort was made by the respondent to give any employment after the retrenchment of

the workmen and even there is non-compliance of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules. The same are reproduced

below:

77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen. -The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the

particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be arranged according to the seniority of their

service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the

premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.

78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen. - (1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to

be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of

the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those vacancies by

registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefor, to the address

given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter:

Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be

sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched workmen in the list

referred to in rule 77 the number of such senior-most workmen being double the number of such vacancies:

Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no obligation on

the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen:

Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the employer,

does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to him by the

employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be filled on any

subsequent occasion.]

(2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall also inform the trade

unions connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled and names of the

retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule:

Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case where an

intimation is sent to every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under rule 77.

22. However, the present work charged employee and other work-charged employees have been retrenched long

back and even at the stage it is impossible to re-employe them. However, certainly in respect of workcharged

employees present Respondent was directed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Judgment of Jaswant Singh (Supra) to

give benefits in terms of settlement and award dated 15.05.1974. The main purpose of Hon‘ble Supreme Court and

Ld. CGIT Chandigarh was to rehabilitate to some extent the work charged employees and restore peace and congenial

atmosphere that is why Ld. CGIT Chandigarh had given directions to all state to re-employe them. Thus, it does not

lie in the mouth of present Respondent that no relief can be granted against present Respondent as petitioners are not

their employees.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1539

A. So far as this argument of Ld. AR of the management that those work charged employees only who have

completed 10 years of service were required to be adjusted within 6 months from their retrenchment is concerned, the

same is devoid of merit as no effort was made by the management to adjust the work charged employees. Moreover,

no documentary evidence has been produced that any effort was made to adjust the workman after his retrenchment.

Further, Ld. CGIT Chandigarh in its last lines concluded as under:-

“As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance staff. I have no

reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also the Central

Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or work whether

in any one of these states or in any other part of the country where there is a need of workmen of those

trades”

Nothing has come on record that above directions were complied with.

23. Moreover, in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees and management, it

cannot be interfered what were the terms and conditions in the said settlement. Further, CGIT Chandigarh has fixed

ten years time and accrual of vacancy within six months keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and

has evolved his own formula to bring peace and harmony between work charged employees and management but it

cannot be said to be a universal policy in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees

and management. However, no effort was made to adjust the petitioners in view of order of CGIT.

24. As regard, this contention of learned AR of management that petitioners were not the employees of the BBMB

but were the employees of BCB, the same is devoid of merit as Discharge certificate was issued by the BBMB.

Moreover, as per respondent Beas Control Board was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year

1966 and all the projects were transferred from Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section

79 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act, BMB was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various

works as mentioned in Section 79 itself. Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organisation Act provides that BMB

constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project

has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project

have been so transferred. All the projects under BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in

1984. When all work of BCB stands transferred to BBMB so it cannot be said that BBMB is separate identity than

BCB. Rather BCB has merged in BBMB. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh case(supra) in respect

of work charged employees has no where stated that relief can be sought by work charged employees only against the

BCB. So contention of Ld. AR of the management that BCB and BBMB are two separate entities is devoid of merit.

25. So far this argument of Law Officer for the respondent that the case is hopelessly time barred is concerned, the

same is again devoid of merits as there was non-compliance of Rule 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules which has been

reproduced above. Moreover, there is no limitation period prescribed for filing a reference. Moreover, reference was

received in the year 2005 and thereafter, several rounds of litigations have taken place. So far as case laws on the

point of limitation the same are not attracted in the present case as there was no compliance of Judgment of Jawant

Singh case (Supra).

26. However, it is added that workman was allowed terminal benefits as admitted by him. Moreover, it is also not

case of the petitioner that there is breach of Section 25 F of the Act.

27. Further, there was non-compliance of Jaswant Singh Case (Supra), Reference No.2C of 1971 and Rule 77 & 78

of Industrial Rules and in this case it would be highly difficult to re-employe the workman. The only remedy left is to

compensate the workman in term of money.

28.

Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and other connected case of similar nature the

following scheme of compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:

Work charged employee who has completed 5 years of service shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/- along with

interest @9% per annum as compensation from the date of moving of application till the realization of amount.

ii.

Work charged employee who has completed less than 5 years but more than 1 year would be entitled

Rs.25,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving of application till the realization of

amount.

iii.

Those employees who have not completed 1 year will not be entitled for any compensation in the present case.

The present work charged workman claimed that he was employed in 1976 and was retrenched on 12.08.1977. There

is no denial of this fact in the written statement. Hence, the statement of workman can be relied upon and it is held

that he worked for 1976 to 12.08.1977 for about 1 year. He is entitled of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @9% per

annum from the date of moving the application till its realization.

29. The reference is answered accordingly and stands disposed off.

30. 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

1540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 627.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार प्रबंधक, मैससव. सहकार ग्लोबल जलजमटेड, मोटो, खुदाव; ृररयोजना जनदेिक, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमागव प्राजधकरण,

नयाृल्ली, भुवनेश्वर, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और ीी सुजस्ट्मता कुमार बजलयार ससह, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण

भुवनेश्वर ृंचाट (संदभव सं्‍या

27/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

07.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-82-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2025

S.O. 627.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour–Bhubaneswar, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The

Manager, M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd., Motto, Khurda; The Project Director, National Highways Authority of

India, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, and Shri Susmita Kumar Baliar Singh, Worker, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 07.04.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-82- IR (DU]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 27/2018

Filed under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act

Date of Passing Order – 29^th October, 2024

Between :-

Sri Susmita Kumar Baliarsingh,

At Narasinghprasad, P.O., Ramachandi,

P.S. Khurda Sadar,

Dist. Khurda

…

Applicant-Workman.

(And)

1. The Manager, M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd.,

At. Godipada Tool Plaza, P.O. Motto,

P.S. Jankia, Dist. Khurda – 752 020

2. The Project Director,

National Highway Authority of India,

Setu Bhawan, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar

…

1^st Party-Managements.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1541

Appearances:

Susmita Kr. Baliarsingh. …

For Himself

…

Applicant

Sri Sajjal Kumar Bose.

…

For the Management No. 1

None

… For the Mgt. No. 2 & 3

ORDER

This is an application of applicant-workman filed under section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein-

after referred as an ―Act‖).

The case of the 2^nd party-workman in brief is as follows:-

That he was engaged as Tool Fees Collector under the Management No. 2 through different contractors from

08.11.2014 and continued to work till 03.06.2017 continuously and uninterruptedly. He was receiving Rs. 9,300/- as

wages per months which was less than the Minimum wages fixed by the Government of India from time to time.

After extending such a long period of service to the managements, they (Management) suddenly terminated his

services with effect from 03.06.2017 without paying any terminal benefits such as retrenchment benefits and notice

pay, in an illegal, unjustified and arbitrary manner adopting unfair labour practice. The Managements have not

followed the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act while refusing employment to the workman

which is illegal, unfair and unjust.

The 2^nd Party-Workmen raised the dispute before the conciliation authorities to get his legitimate claim and

on completion of statutory 45 days of conciliation proceeding the 2^nd party-workman has filed statement of claim

invoking amended act under section 2-A(2) of the I.D. Act for adjudication.

The 2^nd party-workman has prayed to pass an award in his favour.

On the other hand, Management No. 2 has appeared and filed written statement rebutting the stand taken by

the 2^nd party-workmen.

The case of the Management No. 2 is that the 2^nd party-workman was not engaged by the Management No. 2

rather he was engaged by the Management No. 1- Agency for collection of toll fees at different toll gates are selected

through open tender. Engagement of workmen are within the domain of the agency concerned. The only responsibility

of the Management No. 2 to see that the workers engaged by the Management No. 1 are paid minimum wages and

EPF dues and ESI deductions. The Collecting Agent is engaged through open tender for a period of one year and

person engaged by the collection agency are to continue till continuance of the agreement with the agency and the

Management no. 2 is no connected with the terms and conditions of engagement of that person by the agency.

The Management No. 2 has prayed to reject/dismiss the application filed by the applicant and to pass an

order in their favour.

Further the Managements No. 1 (M/s. Sahakar Global Ltd.) initially neither appeared nor filed its Written

Statement in this case in spite of several opportunities given to it. Due to non-appearance of the Management No. 1

order of setting exparte was passed against it on 6.6.2018. Thereafter, the Management no. 1 has moved a petition for

recall the order of exparte passed against it and the said petition was allowed on 29.01.2024.

However, during the course of adjudication, both the 2^nd Party-Workman and the 1^st Party-Management

No. 1 have settled the present dispute out of court and filed original copy of their Memorandum of Settlement in

Form–H containing certain terms & conditions as agreed between them in this dispute. Submitting their

Memorandum of Settlement, both parties have prayed the Tribunal to close this case in terms of the settlement arrived

at between them. The terms of Memorandum of Settlement executed between Sri Susmita Kumar Baliarsingh

(2^nd Party Workman) and Sri Sajal Kumar Bose (Authorised representative of the 1^st Party Management No. 1 are as

under.

―1.

It is agreed between the parties that the workman shall withdraw the present I.D. Case against the

Contractor Management No. 1 upon receipt of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) as full

and final settlement.

2. The workman affirms and acknowledges the receipt of the payment of Rs. 80,000/- and agrees to withdraw

the present proceedings. He was also expressly waives any and all future claims or demands against the

contractor, Management no. 1

3. The settlement is reached out of good will and volition of parties.‖

Considering the facts and circumstance and the submissions of the stake holders of this case, the Tribunal is

of the opinion that whatever dispute was existing between the 2^nd Party-Workmen and the 1^st Party-Managements, the

1542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

same have already been settled and no further adjudication is required under the Act.

Hence this order is passed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the 2^nd Party-

Workman and the 1^st Party-Management No. 1. The Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties in this case forms

part of the order.

This is the Order of this Tribunal.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 628.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार ककग जस‍योररटी गाडव सर्मवस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, जबलृुर, म.प्र., प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और ीी जवकास

कुमार इंगले, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- ीम न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट (संदभव

सं्‍या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/एल/आर/09/2024, को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो

केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 09.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42025-07-20258-94-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th April, 2025

S.O. 628.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/09/2024), of the Central Government

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

employers in relation to The King Security Guard Service Private Ltd., Jabalpur, M.P, and Shir Vikas Kumar

Ingle, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.04.2025,

[No. L-42025-07-20258-94- IR (DU]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/09/2024

Present: P. K. Srivastava

H.J.S.( Retd.)

Shir Vikas Kumar Ingle,

3/85, Ward No. 79, Piparia Khamaria,

Jabalpur, M.P - 482005

Workman

Versus

The King Security Guard Service Private Ltd.,

Jabalpur, M.P - 482005

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 06^th day of March-2025.)

As per letter dated 18/12/2023 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New

Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per

reference number J-8(4)/2023-ALC dt. 18/12/2023. The dispute under reference related to :-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1543

―Whether the action of the Contractor King Security Guard Service Pvt. Ltd. to terminate lfie services

of the workman Shri Vrkas Kumar Ingle is valid ? If not what relief the workman is entitled for ? ‖

After registering the case on reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were duly served on

them. Time was allotted to the workman to submit his statement of claim. In spite of the allotment of time and service

of notice, the workman never turned up and submitted his statement of claim. Management also did not file its written

statement of claim/ defence. No evidence was ever produced by any of the parties in this Tribunal.

The Initial burden to prove his claim is on the workman. Since the workman did not file any pleading nor did

he file any evidence, in the absence of any evidence in support of holding the claim of the workman not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is answered accordingly.

AWARD

In the light of this factual backdrop, holding that the claim of the workman is not proved, the

reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 15 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 629.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार समूह महाप्रबंधक, नेिनल थमवल ृावर कंृनी जलजमटेड, मौदा, नागृुर; प्रबंध जनदेिक, मेससव यूरटजलटी ृावरटेक

जलजमटेड, मौदा, नागृुर; महाप्रबंधक, मेससव साई ऊजाव इंडो वेंचसव प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, मौदा, नागृुर, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और अध्यक्ष, मौदा जवज प्रकल्ृ मजदूर संघ, ृारजसवनी, नागृुर, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केंद्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक न्यायाजधकरण-सह-ीम न्यायालय, नागृुर,ृंचाट (संदभव सं्‍या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/40/2022-23) को

जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 15.04.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-103-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2025

S.O. 629.—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/40/2022-23) 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 Group General Manager, National Thermal Power Company Ltd., Mouda,Nagpur; The

Managing Director, M/s Utility Powertech Ltd., Mouda, Nagpur; The General Manager, M/s Sai Urja Indo

Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mouda, Nagpur, and The President, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Parseoni,

Nagpur, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.04.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-103- IR (DU]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/40/2022-23

Date: 21.03.2025.

Party No. 1:

1) The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Company Ltd.,

Mouda Post & Tah. Mouda,

Distt-Nagpur-441104.

2) The Managing Director

1544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s Utility Powertech Ltd.

New School Building, Ground

Floor, Utkarsh Nagar Mouda,

PO-Mouda, Distt-Nagpur-441104

3) The General Manager,

M/s Sai Urja Indo Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,

N.T.P.C., Mouda, Distt-Nagpur-441104

V/s

Party No. 2:

The President,

Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar,

Tarsa Road, Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni,

Distt-Nagpur-441404

AWARD

(Dated: 21^st 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 N.T.P.C. and their workmen Shri Raju Motilal

Kuryawanshi & 78 others for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/362/2022(IR(DU) dated 06.01.2023, with the

following schedule:-

―Whether demands raised by Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Kanchan, Nagpur vide letter dated

17.08.2020 in respect of Sh. Raju Motilal Kuryawanshi & 78 others (list attached) against the

management of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., Mouda, Nagpur. M/s Utility Powertech Ltd.

Mouda, Nagpur and M/s. Sai Urja Indo Venture Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur over issue of Non payment of Full

and Final Settlement dues to Sh. Raju Motilal Kuryawnshi & 78 others, are proper, legal and

justified? If yes, to what relief as sought vide letter under reference the disputant worker are entitled

and what directions, if any, are necessary in this respect?‖

Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that notices issued to

petitioner have been served personally but petitioner is not attending the Court since very beginning of the case. No

statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner till today. Although respondent had appeared before the Court and

filed his reply on 11/11/2021 which is on record. Petitioner is not attending the Court after service of notice. Hence it

appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. No evidence has been given to prove the case of the

petitioner. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The demands raised by Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Kanchan, Nagpur vide letter

dated 17.08.2020 in respect of Sh. Raju Motilal Kuryawanshi & 78 others (list attached) against the

management of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., Mouda, Nagpur. M/s Utility Powertech Ltd. Mouda,

Nagpur and M/s. Sai Urja Indo Venture Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur over issue of Non payment of Full and Final

Settlement dues to Sh. Raju Motilal Kuryawnshi & 78 others, are improper, illegal and unjustified. The

disputant worker are not entitled to any relief.

The List of enclosed of 79 workmen is also part of award.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1545

File No. L-42/362/2022-IR(DU) (Computer No. 140646) Division

List of workman

Sl.No.

Name of Workers

Raju Motilal Kuryawanshhi

Duryodhan Premdas Mohane

Aslam Babbu Sheikh

Mangesh WAsudeo Motghare

Rahul Haridas Gharpinde

Mithun Ganesh Deshmusk

Pradeep Namdeo Kamble

Ramprasad Tikaram Bangadkar

Yashwant Nanaji Bhoyar

Khushal Gulabrao Wadibhasme

Pravin Devrao Lende

Duryodhan Parasram Hajare

Chakradhar Sawarkar

Uttambal Tarachand Sawarkar

Bharat Shrikrushna Yelane

Maroti Godhru Gawali

Ishwardas Parasram Gadhave

Jitendra Balaji Pund

Vinod Madhukar Shinpure

Pratik Manohar Tagade

Dnyaneshwar Shriram Sawarkar

Wasudeo Chirkut Urkude

Avinash Devrao Bawane

Shankar Shalik Motghjare

Vinod Vishwanath Khadse

Rajkumar Hansadas Deshmukh

Maroti Raghiji Akhare

Suresh Sahadeo Dambhare

Chandrashekhar Gulab Badane

Subhash Pundlikrao Sontakke

Amit Digambar Kawle

Chandrashekhar Rangari

Mahesh Gedekar

Mukesh Raju Khedekar

Vijay Tarachand Patil

Rahul Bankar

Ashok Umarao Pimpalshende

1546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Nepal Gadekar

Prashant Gedekar

Sailesh Meshram

Sunil Narnavre

Narendra Pundlik Gorle

Swapnil Tijare

Sujeet Fattu Bhoyar

Ramesh Lanjewar

Devendra Paytode

Jaychand Raut

Jaydev Meshram

Sandip Raut

Bablu Raut

Chandrapal Yaywade

Balwant Manmode

Surendra Chakole

Rakesh Sitaram Chkole

Kundlik Shende

Sushil Mate

Bhimrav Lahobare

Krishna Kumar

Krishna Bante

Sachin Bagade

Abhilash Meshram

Umesh Tijare

Atul Akare

Chandrakant Yelne

Devidas Umale

Murlidhar Darode

Shubham Dadure

Shyam Bhandate

Amit Sontakke

Rajesh Bavne

Kishor Dhande

Vikas Vadhiye

Nilesh Ramesh Paytode

Bablu Shalikram Randhai

Gendlal Goma Randhai

Shubham Govinda Nagrikar

Pankaj Pradip Vaidya

Vikas Jhade

Wasant Wade

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1547

नई ददल्ली, 15 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 630.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार प्रबंध जनदेिक/महाप्रबंधक, मेससव यूरटजलटी ृॉवरटेक जलजमटेड, (यूृीएल), मौदा, जजला-नागृुर; प्रबंधक,

मेससव ृी.डी. एंटरप्राइजेज, ेकेदार, राजदकिोर नगर, जबलासृुर (छत्तीसगढ़); प्रबंधक, मेससव स्ट्टार इंजडया रेदिजरेिन,

ेकेदार, गणेिृे , नागृुर, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और अध्यक्ष, मौदा जवज प्रकल्ृ मजदूर संघ, ृारजसवनी,

नागृुर, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक न्यायाजधकरण-सह-ीम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (संदभव

सं्‍या (Case No.CGIT/NGP/41/2020-21) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 15.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42025-07-2025-104-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2025

S.O. 630.—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/41/2020-21) 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 The Managing Director/General Manager, M/s Utility Powertech Limited, (UPL), Mouda,

Nagpur;The Manager, M/s P.D. Enterprises, Contractor, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.);The Manager,

M/s Star India Refrigeration, Contractor, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur and The President, Mouda Vij Prakalp

Mazdoor Sangh, Parseoni, Nagpur, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 15.04.2025.

[No. L-42025-07-2025-104- IR (DU]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/41/2020-21

Date: 21.03.2025.

Party No. 1:

1) The Group General Manager,

National Thermal Power Company Ltd.,

Mouda Post. & Tah. Mouda,

Distt-Nagpur-441104

2) The Managing Director/General Manager,

M/s Utility Powertech Limited, (UPL)

Mouda Site Office : Qtr. No. A-13,

Block No. 7, Utkarsh Nagar, N.T.P.C. Township

N.T.P.C. Ltd; Mouda Ramtek Road,

Post Mouda, Tah. Mouda, Distt-Nagpur-441104

3) The Manager,

M/s P.D. Enterprises, Contractor,

Head Office: Plot No. B/95,

Ground Floor, Rajkishore Nagar,

Near Post. Office, Bilaspur-405006 (C.G.)

4) The Manager,

M/s Star India Refrigeration, Contractor,

1548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11/2, Subhash Road,

Opp. Zulayal Mandir,

Ganeshpeth, Nagpur-440018

V/s

Party No. 2:

The President,

Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,

House of Shri Prem Rodekar,

Tarsa Road, Kanhan, Tah. Parseoni,

Distt-Nagpur-441404

AWARD

(Dated: 21^st 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 N.T.P.C. and their workman Shri Kishor Damodhar

Kanoje for adjudication, as per letter No. N-8(28)/2020-ID/IR dated 27.10.2020, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of (1) The Managing Director/General Manager, M/s Utility Powertech Limited,

(UPL) Mouda Site Office: Qtr. No. A-13, Block No. 7, Utkarsh Nagar, N.T.P.C Township, NTPC Ltd.

Mouda Ramtek Road, Post. Mouda, Tah. Mouda, Distt-Nagpur-441104 (2) The Manager,

M/s P.D Enterprises, Contractor, Head Office: Plot No. B/95, Ground Floor, Rajkishore Nagar, Near

Post. Office, Bilaspur, (3) The Manager, M/s Star India Refrigeration, Contractor, 11/2, Subhash

Road, Opp. Zulayal Mandir, Ganeshpeth Nagpur in terminating the service of Shri Kishor Damodhar

Kanoje w.e.f. 31/03/2018 are just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that notices issued to

petitioner have been served personally but petitioner is not attending the Court since very beginning of the case. No

statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner till today. Although respondent had appeared before the Court and

filed his reply on 11/11/2021 which is on record. Petitioner is not attending the Court after service of notice. Hence it

appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. No evidence has been given to prove the case of the

petitioner. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of (1) The Managing Director/General Manager, M/s Utility Powertech Limited, (UPL)

Mouda Site Office: Qtr. No. A-13, Block No. 7, Utkarsh Nagar, N.T.P.C Township, NTPC Ltd. Mouda Ramtek

Road, Post. Mouda, Tah. Mouda, Distt-Nagpur-441104 (2) The Manager, M/s P.D Enterprises, Contractor,

Head Office: Plot No. B/95, Ground Floor, Rajkishore Nagar, Near Post. Office, Bilaspur, (3) The Manager,

M/s Star India Refrigeration, Contractor, 11/2, Subhash Road, Opp. Zulayal Mandir, Ganeshpeth Nagpur in

terminating the service of Shri Kishor Damodhar Kanoje w.e.f. 31/03/2018 are just fair & legal. The workman

is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 631.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ृारादीृ ृोटव रस्ट्ट 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; भुवनेश्वर ds iapkV (a42/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-38012/01/2019- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1549

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 631.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 42/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Paradip Port

Trust their workmen.

[No. L-38012/01/2019- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

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. 42/2019

Date of Passing Order – 25^th November, 2024

Between :-

The Chairman, Paradip Port Trust,

Paradip, Distt. Jagatsinghpur (Odisha)

The Executive Engineer,

P.H. Division, Paradip Port Trust,

Paradip, Jagatsinghpur

…

1^st Party-Managements

(And)

Sri Umesh Chandra Mohanty & 4 others,

At. Nehuru Bangalow, Market Colony,

Paradip, Jagatsinghpur

…

2^nd Party-Workmen

Appearances:

None

…

For the 1^st Party-Managements

None

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workmen

ORDER

In the present case, a reference was received from the Section Officer to the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-38012/01/2019 – IR(B-II), dated 09.05.2019 under clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a

dispute, under the following schedule:-

―Whether the termination of workman Shri Umesh Chandra Mohanty, Shri Bhagaban Das, Shri

Debendra Kumar Pani, Shri Santosh Kumar Bhola and Shri Srikant Kumar Das w.e.f. 01.01.2005, Ex-

Pump Operator engaged through the different contractors by the Executive Engineer, PHD of M/s.

Paradip Port Trust, Paradip is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief workman Shri Umesh Chandra

Mohanty & 4 others are entitled to?

2. In the reference order, the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New

Delhi commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of

such statement of claim to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

1550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

4. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2^nd Party-workmen on 29.08.2019, 20.01.2023 and on

dated 08.01.1024 for appearance and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2^nd Party-

Workmen, 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-Workmen. Despite service of the notice, the 2^nd Party-Workmen opted to

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

Workmen is not interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

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

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

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

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

1947, for publication.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 632.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

रेलवे जवद्युतीकरण 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; भुवनेश्वर ds iapkV (a12/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-50]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 632.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 12/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Railway

Electrification their workmen.

[No. 12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-50]

SALONI, Dy. Director

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. 12/2020

Date of Passing Order – 24^th December, 2024

Between :-

Sri Ganeswar Maharana & 2 others,

S/o. Late Managobinda Maharana,

Ray – 100, Baramunda, Near Jagannath Temple,

Behind Old Saw Mill, Bhubaneswar

…

2^nd Party-Workmen

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1551

(And)

1. M/s. Oriental Security Service (P) Ltd.,

Plot No. 588, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar.

2. The Chief Project Director,

Railway Electrification, Rail Vihar, Bhubaneswar

…

1^st Party-Managements.

Appearances:

Ganeswar Maharana.

…

For the 2^nd party-

Workmen

Sri P.K. Swain

…

For the Management No. 1

None

For the Management No. 2

ORDER

In the present case, a reference was received from the office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar vide order No. 08(03)/2019/Dy. CLC/BBSR/B.IV, dated 10.10.2019 under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of a dispute,

under the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s. Oriental Security Service (P) Limited, Contractor of

East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Sri Ganeswar Maharana and denying

him for full and final payment under section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and/or

justified? If not, what relief the workman isentitled to?‖

The case of the 2^nd party-workman in brief is as follows:-

That he was engaged as Carpenter in the month of June, 2009 and worked under the 1^st Party-Management

No. 1 for nine years, but at about 8 P.M. of 31.09.2019 a telephone call came from the Management and he was told

that he would not be required to join his duty from next day. After serving for nine years continuously he was driven

away without assigning any reason and without any prior notice. He has not yet given his gratuity amount and other

benefits by the Management. He had raised a dispute before the labour machinery and on failure of conciliation

proceeding the present reference has been made.

The 2^nd party-workman has prayed to pass an award in his favour.

On the other hand, both the Managements neither appear nor file any written statement in this case in spite

of several opportunities given to them.

However, during the course of adjudication, both the 2^nd Party-Workman and the 1^st Party-Management No.

1 have settled the present dispute out of court and filed original copy of their Memorandum of Settlement in Form – H

containing certain terms & conditions as agreed between them in this dispute with signatures of workman, authorized

representative of the 1^st Party-Management and two witnesses. Submitting their Memorandum of Settlement, both

parties have prayed the Tribunal to close this case in terms of the settlement arrived at between them. The terms of

Memorandum of Settlement executed between Sri Ganeswar Maharana (2^nd Party Workman) and Sri Pratap Chandra

Samantaray (Authorised representative of the 1^st Party Management are as under.

―1.

That, pursuant to the execution of agreement on wages and other matters with 1^st Party

M/s. Oriental Security Service on 10.10.2023 the 2^nd party has settled the disputes with the Management

under the settlement and accordingly the 2^nd party does not want to proceed further with the present case.

That, it is further agreed between the parties to submit this Memorandum of Settlement before the

Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case

No. 12 of 2020.

Considering the facts and circumstance and the submissions of the stake holders of this case, the Tribunal is

of the opinion that whatever dispute was existing between the 2^nd Party-Workmen and the 1^st Party-Managements, the

same have already been settled and no further adjudication is required under the Act.

Hence, this order is passed in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the 2^nd Party-

Workman and the 1^st Party-Management No. 1. The Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties in this case forms

part of the order.

This is the Order of this Tribunal.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, Presiding Officer

1552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 633.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

”

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; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a30/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-53]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 633.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 30/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of West Central Railway

and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-53]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2021

Present: P.K. Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Sanjay Kumar Kachhi &

Other Contract Workers

H.No. 188, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar

Near New Lucky Tent House

Sadar, Cantt., Jabalpur – 482001 (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

1. M/s. Bharti Engineering

Rep. by Shri Nehal Shah, Partner

314, Starlit Tower, 3^rd Floor, 29/1,

Y.N. Road, Indore (M.P.)-452003

2. The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (G)

West Central Railway

Jabalpur (M.P.)

Management

Shri Arnav Tiwari

Learned Counsel for Management

No. 2

Shri S.K. Gupta

Learned Counsel for Management

No. 3

AWARD

(Passed on this 12^th day of March - 2025.)

As per letter dated 03/08/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number J-1(2-4)/2021-IR dt. 03/08/2021.

The dispute under reference related to :-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1553

“Whether the termination of Shri Sanjay Kumar Kachhi & other contract workers is legal, justified and

valid or not ? If not, to what relief the contract labours are entitled to ?”

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

on them. Management appeared and filed their Written Statement of Defense.

During the proceedings, parties filed a settlement said to be arrived at between the parties.

Workman Sanjay Kumar Kachhi and Rohit Lodhi jointly filed an application with their affidavits with case

that the dispute between them and M/s. Bharti Engineering has been settled by way of settlement. Railway are only

proper party being principal employer and no relief virtually has been sough against Railways. The dispute mainly is

between the workman and the contractor M/s. Bharti Engineering.

Since, the dispute has been settled between the parties as per terms of settlement, the reference stands

answered in terms of settlement, which shall form part of Award.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 12/03/2025

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 634.—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 deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a104/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 41012/92/2016-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 634.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 104/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway

and their workmen.

[No. L-41012/92/2016- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/104/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The Divisional Secretary,

Paschim Railway Karamchari Parishad (PRKP)

Western Railway, Ratlam Division,

Ratlam (MP) – 457001.

Workman

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway, Ratlam Divn.

Ratlam (MP) - 457001

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 07^thday of April- 2025)

As per letter dated 09/08/2017 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification

No. L-41012/92/2016 (IR(B-I)) dt. 09/08/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the Railway Administration, Ratlam Divn., W.R. in deducting withdrawing one

increment of Mr. Umesh Patel, Head TTE, Ratlam Division, in the month of Dec 2012 is justified or

legal? IF not, what relief Shri. Umesh Patel is entitled to?”

1554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The undisputed facts coming out from pleading of both the parties are that, the Applicant Workman Umesh

Patel, was in pay-scale Rs. 5200-20200-2800/- grade pay in April 2011, and was getting basic pay Rs. 13,370/-. The

Management of Railways, accorded him second upgradation on 29.04.2011 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 14,180/-

basic pay.

The case of the Workman is that, he had filed an application on 16.05.2011 to change his date of increment

on 01.07.2011 through the Chief Ticket Inspector Shri R.R. Verma, and his application was forwarded by Shri R.R.

Verma to the Divisional Office, which was allowed and his date of next increment was changed as 01.07.2012. He

was given next increment on 01.07.2012 as his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 15,050/- on 01.07.2012 by the

Management. But, the Management surprisingly issued an order by which Rs. 15,050/- basic pay fixed as on

01.07.2012 was reduced to Rs. 14,850/- in December, 2012, without issuing him show cause notice and without any

reason which is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. The case of the Workman is further that, he had made a representation on

31.07.2013, to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Ratlam, in Railway Division Ratlam against this action of

Management and also filed a rejoinder on 23.01.2014 but no action was taken by the Management.

Management has defended its action on the ground that, the Workman was accorded second financial up

gradation under MACPS (Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme) in the scale of Senior Ticket Examiner

Rs. 5200-20200/- at scale pay of Rs. 2800/- and his basic pay was fixed on 29.04.2011 at Rs. 14,180/-. The case of the

Management is that, as per Rules in the Railway Establishment Code, there is a provision that the option to change

date of increment that promotion will be considered only when it is filed within one month from the date of

promotion. But, the Workman did not file his application for change of date of increment, before the Competent

Authority within the prescribed period of one month, hence he was held not entitled to get the benefit of change of his

date of increment. It is also the case of Management that was due to mistake that the Pay Roll Independent Module

Of Program (PRIM) prepared his salary after promotion on the basis of changed date of increment by way of his

system mistake in absence of any Office Order to this effect, which was rectified. According to the Management,

there action is proved in law.

Both the sides have filed affidavits and documents which are not disputed and to be referred to as and when

required. I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the Applicant Workman Mr. Pranay Choubey and Mr. R.K.

Soni for Management. Written arguments are also on record, which are filed by the Management. I have gone through

the Written Arguments and the record.

On perusal of the record on the basis of rival arguments, the issue which comes for determination in the case

in hand is as follows:-

1. Whether the Workman has proved the fact that he complied with the condition of submitting his

application for date of change of increment on a within prescribed period of one month from the date

of promotion to the Competent Authority and its legal effects?

Submission of the Workman Learned Counsel is that, he has filed this application before Shri. R.R. Verma

who was his Head of the Office of the day of filing his application on 16.05.2011, which is established by his affidavit

as his examination-in-chief, cross-examination and the photocopy of his application dated 16.05.2011, this application

contains receiving of the Chief Ticket Inspector Indore, Shri. R.R. Verma, on this basis it has been submitted from the

side of Workman that, this application was filed within 30 days from 29.04.2011 which was the date of his financial

up gradation. Whereas, Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that his application is an afterthought which

is shown by the fact that, it does not contain any date below the signature of the Chief Ticket Inspector. Learned

Counsel referred to report of the Departmental Enquiry said to be conducted by Management in this respect, in which

it was found after enquiry that, this application dated 16.05.2011 was never filed before the C.T.I. incharge or his

Clerk, nor was it forwarded to Divisional Office, and Shri. R.R. Verma (C.T.I), whose signature is at the application

showing that he received this application, was in fact not the Office In-charge CTI on 16.05.2011. Also that this,

application was never received in the Divisional Office. One Vinod examined during the enquire, said the Enquiry

Officer that he was CTI Office In-charge since 01.12.2010, and the Workman Umesh Patel did not file any application

to me or his clerk as claimed by me.

Learned Counsel for Workman has referred to Office Order of Divisional Office, Ratlam proved as Exhibit

W-5 which shows that Shri. Raja Ram Verma, Chief Ticket Inspector was transferred to Railway Station Indore, as

CTI (SL) In-charge, Indore, Exhibit W-6 is the attendance sheet of May 2011, which goes to show that Raja Ram

Verma was CTI on duty on that day. He is at serial No. 1 in the attendance register, whereas Vinod, who disposed in

the enquiry is on Serial No. 4.

The facts established are that Raja Ram Verma and Vinod both were CTI‘s on 16.05.2011. Management has

not filed any Office Order to show that Vinod was designated as CTI in-charge on 16.05.2011. Hence, in absence of

such a order, the finding in the show called enquiry conducted in absence and without acknowledge of the Workman,

alleges its significance. The Workman was required to file his option for change of his date of increment within time

permitted of one month to his Chief Inspector has established from evidence. It was on the part of the Chief Inspector

after his to forward it to Divisional Office. And the workman could not be held responsible for its application was not

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1555

forwarded to original office in time. Hence, on the basis of above finding, action on the part of Management of

Railways in not changing the date of his next increment as 01.07.2012 is held to be unjust, and order of the

Management in reducing the salary of the Workman has set-aside by me on this basis is also held unjust, illegal and

arbitrary. Consequently, the Workman is held entitled to change his next increment as 01.07.2012 and receive

consequential benefits on this basis.

In the light of above findings, the reference is answered as follows: -

AWARD

Holding the action of the action of the Railway Administration, Ratlam Divn., W.R. in deducting

withdrawing one increment of Mr. Umesh Patel, Head TTE, Ratlam Division, in the month of Dec 2012 is held

unjust and illegal. He is entitled to get changed his next increment as 01.07.2012 and receive consequential

benefits on this basis and consequential benefits.

No order as to cost.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE:- 07/04/2025

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 635.—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 deZdkjksads chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a14/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -12025/01/2025-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-54]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 635.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 14/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur 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)-54]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/14/2019

Present: P.K. Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Smt. Vimla Chawre

Through General Secretary

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan

K.K.F.-1, Tripti Vihar, Ujjain (M.P.)

Workman

1. Assistant General Manager.

State Bank of India

Main Branch, GPO (387), Indore (M.P.)

2. Chief General Manager

State Bank of India

Local Head Office, Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

1556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 11^th day of March-2025)

The Workman Union has filed petition under Section 2(A) (2 & 3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1949

(in short the Act), against termination of services of its member Smt. Vimla Chawre by the Management with a case

that, she had joined the Management as Cleaner cum Peon with the Bank in 1987 and worked continuously till

12.01.2018 when her services were terminated by the Bank which is illegal on following grounds:-

1. No permission was taken from appropriate authority before termination.

2. No seniority list of workers was displayed.

3. No prior notice of termination was given to the workman.

The workman union has prayed that holding the termination of services of Smt. Vimla Chawre on

12.01.2018 against law, she be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefits.

In its written statement to the petition, the Management has taken a case that the workman was daily

wager who was engaged by Bank for cleaning of office, used to work for one or two hours daily. She never completed

240 days in continuous service. She was disengaged after paying full retrenchment compensation Rs. 2,26,750/- and

she has also been paid one month salary Rs. 14,629/- in lieu of notice as well wages Rs. 7314/- till 12.01.2018. Hence,

action of management is justified in law.

In evidence, the workman union filed some photocopy documents but did not care to prove. No affidavit

was filed by workman union in support of its claim. Management has filed affidavit of its witness as his examination

in chief. He has not been cross examined by union.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Vijay Tripathi for Management. No argument has been

advanced by workman union side.

Admittedly, the workman has been paid retrenchment compensation, one month salary in lieu of notice and

remaining salary for the month till date of his termination. Case of the workman is that management forcibly

deposited in her account without her consent. It comes out that Cheque of the said amount was issued by management

which was deposited by the workman in her account and the amount in the Cheque was credited in her account. The

burden to prove the grounds of alleged illegality in disengagement is on workman union in which they have not

discharged.

On the basis of findings mentioned above, holding the action of management in terminating his

services, justified in law, the workman is held to be entitled to no relief. Petition stands disposed accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 11/03/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 636.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

सतृुड़ा क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण 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; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a69/2007) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/39/2007-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 636.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 69/2007) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Satpura Kshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/39/2007- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1557

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/69/2007

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Sriram Lanjewar,

R/o Vill and PO Mate,

Teh. Kiranpur

Distt. Balaghat (Chhindwara)

Balaghat

Workman

The Chairman/President

Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Chhindwara,

Chhindwara

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 28^thday of March - 2025)

As per letter dated 24/07/2007 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-

12012/39/2007 (IR(B-I)) dt. 24/07/2007. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of the Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara,

Distt. Chhindwara, in terminating the services of Sri Sriram Lanjewar S/o Sri Kamal Prasad Lanjewar, without

following the disciplinary proceedings, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?”

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared

and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

Both the parties adduced evidence orally and documentary and Award was passed by my Learned

Predecessor vide his judgment dated 31.08.2015 which is as follows:

―1. Action of Management of Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara in terminating the services of

Shri Sriram Lanjewar son of Shri Kamala Prasad Lanjewar is not proper and legal.

2. Termination of Workman is set-aside. 2^nd party is directed to reinstatement Workman without back

wages.

3. Parties to bear their respective costs.”

This Award was challenged by the Management before Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. No.

3341/2016 and was decided by a Single Bench of Hon‘ble High Court on 03.10.2023.

The Hon‘ble High Court set-aside the Award and remanded back the matter to be heard and decided again

after passing order on application of the Workman which he had filed on 31.08.2009 before this Tribunal seeking

production of original documents from Management which included Cash Scrolls, Acquaintance rolls, Payment

Vouchers, Payment Register etc.

After remand, the said application dated 03.08.2009 was heard and decided by this Tribunal on 16.04.2024.

Management was directed to file the original documents mentioned in the application or filed affidavit of someone

authorized on their behalf if these documents were not available. Thereafter, as many as four days were given to

Management to file these documents. They did not file, rather they filed an affidavit stating that these documents were

not available with them.

1558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thereafter, application of Workman to prove these documents by secondary evidences was granted after

hearing. The Workman proved these documents in his re-cross-examination on oath. These documents were marked

Exhibit W-5 to W-8. Thereafter, the argument of Learned Counsel for Workman Mr. Neeraj Kewat and Mr. Ashish

Shroti Learned Counsel for Management were heard and records have been perused by me.

As it comes out from perusal of records in the light of rival arguments that following issues were framed by

my Learned Predecessor which are :-

1. Whether the action of Management of Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank Chhindwara, in terminating

services of Shri Sriram Lanjewar son of Shri Kamala Prasad Lanjewar is justified.

2. If not, what relief the Workman is entitled to?

Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of Workman holding the action of Management in terminating his services

unjust and against law. Consequently, Issue No.2 was also decided in favour of Workman holding him

entitled to be reinstated without back wages.

As it comes out from perusal of order of Hon‘ble High Court referred to above, that the writ petition against

the judgment and Award was filed by Management. If Management had produced the documents summoned by this

Tribunal under order of Hon‘ble High Court, it would have helped this Tribunal to record a finding in favour or

against either of the Parties.

Management did not filed these documents summoned rather they filed affidavit with these documents were

not available with them. The nature of documents is such that namely they should be in possession and control of

Management and not of Workman. Hence, this Tribunal will be justified in law to adverse interference against

management that had these documents being reproduced they would have supported the case of the Workman.

Even otherwise, when there is no documentary evidence available, the case is to be decided on statements on

oath given by the parties. My Learned Predecessor has recorded a finding on the basis of evidence available at that

time that the Workman had successfully proved his continuous engagement with management for 240 days and also

realised termination of his services was bad in law. In absence of any additional evidences contrary to the case of

Workman after the case was recorded by Hon‘ble High Court and being reheard under direction of Hon‘ble High

Court, I did not find any occasion to disagree with the findings recorded by my Learned Predecessor accordingly, it is

held that the termination of services of the Workman Sri Sriram Lanjewar was bad in law.

Issue no 1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2-

My Learned Predecessor has further recorded his finding that the Workman is entitled to be reinstated

without back wages. Learned Senior Counsel for Management has submitted on this point that, the proper relief

would have been grant of compensation because the Workman is not appointed following recruitment process against

any sanctioned vacancy. He has referred following judgments in this respect Incharge Officer and Another V.s.

Shankar Shetty (2010) Vol. 9 SCC 126. (Para 2,3,4,7), and Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. V.s. Sowaran Singh

(2005) Vol. 8 SCC 461 (Para 13).

From the evidence on record, it is proved that the Workman has worked since 14.11.1990 to 27.11.2003

and thereafter he is fighting with Management against his termination in different forums including this Tribunal and

Hon‘ble High Court. That is to say he has given his entire youth to the Management. Keeping this fact in view, lump

sum compensation in lieu of all his claims will not meet the ends of justice.

And the case referred by Learned Senior Counsel for Management can be easily distinguished on facts.

After considering all the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, reinstatement of the Workman with all in

service benefits treating himself to be in management of Management since the date of his termination with 20% back

wages will meet the end of justice.

Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

On the basis of above findings, the reference is answered as follows:

AWARD

Holding the action of the management of the Chairman, Satpura Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara,

Distt. Chhindwara, in terminating the services of Sri Sriram Lanjewar S/o Sri Kamal Prasad Lanjewar is illegal

and unjustified in law. He be held entitled to be reinstated in service with management with all in service benefits

with 20% back wages from the date of his termination.

No order as to cost.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE:- 28/03/2025

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1559

नई ददल्ली, 17 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 637.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e]1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

आयुध जनमावणी खमररया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a13/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 42011/72/2022-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 17th April, 2025

S.O. 637.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Ordance Factory

Khamaria and their workmen.

[No. L-42011/72/2022- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/13/2022

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd)

The General Secretary

Fire Brigade Karmchari Sangh

Office – 1595, Dr. Ambedkar Colony

In front of Shiv Temple, Nearby Dr. Sahu Ji,

Katra, Adhartaal, Jabalpur (M.P.)-482004

Workman

Versus

General Manager

Ordnance Factory Khamaria

(A Unit of Mounitions of India Ltd.)

Jabalpur - 482005

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 01^st day of April - 2025.)

As per letter dated 15/03/2022 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to

this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-42011/72/2022/IR(DU) dt. 15/03/2022.

The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether demand of Fire Brigade Karmachari Sangh, Jabalpur (M.P.) vide its letter dated 19.02.2021 to

the management of Ordnance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur to give promotion from leading Fireman to Supervisor

(Non-Technical) which is happening in other sister concerns of Ordnance Factory is proper, legal, justified and

valid ? If yes, to what relief the leading Fireman employees of Ordnance Factory Khamaria are entitled and what

directions are necessary in the matter?”

Notices were issued to the parties on the reference. They appeared and filed their respective statements of

claims and defense.

Facts are almost undisputed. The workman Rajendra Kumar Tiwari whose claim is being prosecuted by the

workman union in the present reference, was previously working as leading Fireman. The SRO No. 73, issued by the

management Headquarter at Delhi /Union of India on 01.08.2019, provided that the Leading Fireman who had

1560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

completed five years of regular service in Level-3 in Pay Matrix Rs. 21700-6900, would be eligible for promotion to

Supervisor (Non-Technical) and 60% promotions to Supervisor (Non-Technical) will be done from leading Fireman,

the remaining 40% posts were to be filled by direct recruitment. The claim of the workman union is that, workman

Rajendra Kumar Tiwari had completed five years of regular service as leading Fireman in Pay Matrix Level-3, was

eligible to be promoted in the year 2020 itself, when he completed his regular service of five years as mentioned

above but management arbitrarily did not grant him promotion in 2020, rather promoted him in 2022 which is unjust,

illegal and arbitrary on the part of management.

Management has taken a case that the workman Rajendra Kumar completed his regular service of five years

in Pay Matrix Level-3 Leading Fireman only on 01.05.2020, his case was rightly not considered by the Departmental

Promotion Committee constituted by management in its meeting on 01.01.2020. Further, according to management,

since Rajendra Kumar did not have certificate of training required for promotion in SRO-30 of 2010, his case was

rightly not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee in 2011. It is after the management at

local level received a letter of clarification issued by management head quarter vide its letter dated 09.03.2022

clarifying that the requirement of training as mentioned in Clause-(a) to (e) in the Clause-12(i) of SRO-30 of 2010

stood omitted by the SRO-73 of 01.08.2019, the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by management met

on 01.01.2022 and recommended promotion of Rajendra Kumar to Supervisor from date 19.04.2022 and he has been

promoted now.

Both the sides have filed affidavits and relevant SROs as well other documents, to be referred to as and when

required.

I have heard argument of learned Counsel for workman union Mr. Arun Patel and learned Counsel for

management Mr. Gopi Chourasiya.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the only issue which comes up for determination is

whether the workman Rajendra Kumar should have been considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor (Non-

Technical) from the post of Leading Fireman after he became eligible when he completed regular service of five

years as leading Fireman Pay Matrix Level-3 on 01.05.2020? In other words, whether the action of the

Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by management in not considering the case of workman Rajendra

Kumar for promotion as mentioned above, was correct in law?

The excuse taken by management for not considering the claim of Rajendra Kumar for his promotion was

that he had not undergone the required training as mentioned in SRO-30 of 2010 (mentioned above). The Headquarter

has clarified in 2022 (details mentioned above) that in the light of SRO-73 issued on 01.08.2019 this condition of

training was deemed to be done away. This makes it clear that the workman Rajendra Kumar Tiwari was eligible and

entitled for promotion in the light of latest SRO-73 of 01.08.2019. His claim cannot be delayed on the excuse that

time of two years was consumed in getting clarification by Headquarter. It is also established from RTI documents

filed by workman union that the other units of the management have promoted their leading Fireman relying on the

SRO-73 of 01.08.2019 without insisting the requirement of training as required in SRO-30 of 2010 (mentioned

above).

In the light of above facts and discussions, the action of management in not promoting the workman

Rajendra Kumar to the post of Supervisor (Non-Technical) and not considering his case for promotion by the

Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting on 01.01.2021 is held to be unjust, illegal and arbitrary.

Management is directed to promote workman Rajendra Kumar from 01.01.2021 to the post of Supervisor

(Non-Technical) and grant him all the related/consequencial benefits from that date. The whole exercise be

completed within 30 days from the date of publication of Award. The reference stands answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

DATE: 01/04/2025

नई ददल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 638.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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; बैंगलोर ds iapkV (38/2011) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y -12012/05/2016-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1561

New Delhi, the 21st April, 2025

S.O. 638.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/2011) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

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

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/05/2016- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, CAMP

COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 28^th MARCH 2025

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB.

Presiding Officer

C R No. 38/2011

I Party

II Party

The General Secretary,

State Bank‘s Staff Union (Karnataka),

LHO, St. Mark‘s Road,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office,

St. Mark‘s Road,

BANGALORE – 560 001.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri B D Kuttappa

Advocate

II Party :

Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya

Advocate

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-12012/05/2016-IR(B-I) dated 29.09.2011

in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ―The Act‖) (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bangalore,

Karnataka in issuing the instructions vide letter No. S&P/YSB/20 dated 18/4/2007 and No. OP&SP No.

40 dated 24/4/2007 incorporating additional duties and responsibilities to the Special Assistants without

giving a notice to the workmen likely to be affected by such change, as required under Section 9A of

Industrial Dispute Act 1947, is legal and justified? To what relief the Union is entitled?‖

2. After registering the case the date of hearing was fixed as 02.11.2011 and the Claim Statement was filed on

24.10.2016 and Counter Statement of the II Party was filed on 23.06.2020. Then the matter was posted for

Evidence of II Party. When the matter stood thus the 1^st Party Union General Secretary along with his Counsel

on 07.03.2025 filed a Memo that the aforesaid dispute has been resolved by the parties and as such the dispute

does not survive for consideration and hence, does not press for the present reference.

Perused the records. The 1^st Party Counsel has filed a Memo dated 18.11.2024 which bears the

signature of the 1^st Party Union General Secretary and counter signed by the learned counsel for the 1^st Party

on record. Therefore, in view of the above, the Memo is recorded and prayer is allowed. The reference is thus

dismissed as not pressed. Transmit.

AWARD

Reference is dismissed as not pressed.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 28^th March 2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

1562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 639.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार

उृ महाजनदेिक (ई), आकािवाणी, प्रसार भारती, भारत का साववजजनक प्रसारक, चांदमारी, गुवाहाटी; जनदेिक,

मेससव एचआरडी कमर्मियल एंड इंडजस्ट्रयल जस‍योररटी फोसव प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, करीमगंज, असम, प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और, ीी सानु दैमारी, मैराृुर,कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-

ीम न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी ृंचाट (संदभव सं्‍या आईडी नंबर 10 of 2020), को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है,

प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 15.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42025-07-2024-108-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2025

S.O. 639.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID. No. 10 of 2020), of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to The Dy. Director General (E), All India Radio, Prasar Bharti, India Punlic Broadcaster,

Chandmari, Guwahati; The Director, M/s HRD Commercial & Industrial Security Force Pvt. Ltd.,

Karimganj, Assam, and Shri Sanu Daimari, Mairapur, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 15.04.2025,

[No. L-42025-07-2024-108-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

PRESENT:

Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

REF. CASE NO. 10 of 2020.

PARTIES:

Sri Sanu Daimari, Mairapur, Goda Khahania para, P.O.-Rani, PS- Palasbari, Kamrup, Assam,

Pin-781131. ………Workman.

-Vrs-

The Management of (1) the Dy. Director General (E), All India Radio, Prasar Bharti,, India Punlic Broadcaster,

Chandmari, Guwahati-781003 and (2) the Director, M/s HRD Commercial & Industrial Security Force Pvt. Ltd., S.T.

Road, Badarpur, Karimganj, Assam, Pin-788803. …….OP/Management.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workman

: None appeared.

For the Management.

: Mr. Rajib Hazarika, Addl. Central Govt.

Standing Counsel.

For the Contractor

: Md. Mustafa Kamal Ali, learned Advocate.

INDUSTRY

All India Radio,

STATE

Assam.

Date of Award

02-04-2025.

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India through

the Office of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, vide its Order No. G/R. 8(04)/2020-Dy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1563

CLC(C)/ID dated 20-10-2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between Sri Sanu Daimari the workman

and the Management of All India Radio, Guwahati and the Contractor, M/s HRD Commercial & Industrial Security

Force Pvt. Ltd., Karimganj, Assam for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of All India Radio, Prasar Bharti, India Punlic Broadcaster, Chandmari,

Guwahati-781003 and their Service provider/Contractor M/s HRD Commercial & Industrial Security Force

Pvt. Ltd., S.T. Road, Badarpur, Karimganj, Assam-788803 in terminating the services of Sh. Sanu Daimari

Mairapur,

Goda

Khahania

para,

P.O.

Rani,

P.S.

Palasbari,

Kamrup,

Assam,

781131,

Ex-

Helper/Peon/Safaiwala/Farash/Canteen boy/Asst. w.e.f. 05-10-2019 & non-payment of wages for Oct-Nov,2019

is justified without giving any notice of termination? If not, what relief Sh. Sanu Daimari is entitled to?”

On the basis of Order instant case was registered as Reference Case No.10 of 2020 on 22-10-2020 and

notices were issued to the Management, Contractor and the workman for appearance and filing claim

statement/written statement, documents and list of witnesses.

On receiving the notice, the Management and the Contractor were appeared through their engaged learned

Counsels. The Workman was absent without any steps. The Management of All India Radio, Guwahati was submitted

Written Statement. The Workman and the Contractor were not submitted their Written Statement, last chance was

given vide order dated 16-07-2021 and 17-08-2021 to the workman for filing of claim statement but none appeared

for the workman nor any step has been taken on his behalf, therefore vide order dated 04-10-2021 the Reference Case

No.10 of 2020 was disposed of by my learned predecessor but physical copy of the Award was not prepared.

Accordingly, the Case record of Reference case No. 10 of 2020 is put up before me. On perusal of the case

record and considering the circumstances of the case it appears to me that ample opportunity was provided but the

concerned Workman is not inclined to pursue this case. It is thus, abundantly clear that the workman is not interested

to go ahead with the proceeding. The Reference case No. 10 of 2020 is therefore disposed of in the form of a no

dispute award.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the Reference case No. 10 of 2020 is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award. Let copies of the

Award be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for

information and Notification.

AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 640.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय

सरकार जनदेिक, भारतीय सववेक्षण जवभाग, जीडीसी, जसलचर; मेससव एचआरडी कमर्मियल एंड इंडजस्ट्रयल जस‍योररटी

फोसव प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, करीमगंज, असम; मेससव इमप्रेजसव डेटा सर्मवस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, ददल्ली, प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और, सुीी रीमा जमत्रा, और सुीी मौ देव, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजधकरण- सह- ीम न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी ृंचाट (संदभव सं्‍या आईडी नंबर 12 of 2023), को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 15.04.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. ,y - 42011-24-2023-vkbZ vkj (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2025

S.O. 640.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID. No. 12 of 2023), of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to The Director, Survey of India, GDC, Silchar ; M/s HRD Commercial & Industrial Security Force

Pvt. Ltd., Karimganj, Assam ;M/s Impressive Data Service pvt. Ltd., Delhi, and Miss Reema Mitra, and Miss

Mou Dev, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 15.04.2025,

[No. L-42011-24-2023-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

1564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

PRESENT:

Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 12 of 2023.

PARTIES:

Miss Reema Mitra, D/o Sh. Sanjit Mitra, Rashbehari Lane, Sonal Road, Silchar, Pin-788005 and

Miss Mou Dev, D/o Late Madhusudan Deb, Hospital Road, Ward No.12, Sonal Road, Silchar,

Assam, Pin-788005.

……… Workmen/Applicant.

-Vrs-

The Management of (1) The Director, Survey of India, GDC, Silchar (2) M/s HRD Commercial &

Industrial Security Force Pvt. Ltd., Karimganj, Assam (3) M/s Impressive Data Service pvt. Ltd.,

Delhi. …..…..OP/Management.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workmen

: None

For the Contractors : None

For the Management.

: Mr. Bhaskar Jyoti Deka, Officer Surveyor.

Mr. Dipankar Dutta, Officer Surveyor.

INDUSTRY

Survey of India,

STATE

Assam.

Date of Award

03/04/2025.

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub–section (1) and Sub-Sec (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its order No. L-

42011/24/2023-IR(DU) dated 31-03-2023 has been please to refer the following dispute between the employer, that

is the Management of Oil India Ltd. and their Workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

―Whether demand of Miss Reema Mitra D/o Sh. Sanjit Mitra and Miss Mou Deb vide letter dated 3.2.2022

to the management of Survey of India, Tripura, Manipur & Mizoram Geo-Spatial Data Centre, Silchar

M/s HRD Commercial & Industry Security Force Pvt.Ltd., Karimganj, Assam M/s Impressive Data Service

Pvt. Ltd., Delhi for release of 25 days salary (1^st March to 20^th March,2020 i.e. 20 days of March,2020 and

1^st April to 5^th April i.e. 5 days of April 2021), is proper, legal and justified ? If yes, to what relief the

disputants are entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter ?‖

On receiving Order from the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, for adjudication of

the dispute, Reference case No. 12 of 2023 was registered on 11-05-2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice

to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant

documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

On receiving the notice, the Management of Survey of India, GDC, Silchar appeared through their

authorized person regularly. The Contractors and the workmen were absent. The Management of Survey of India

submitted their written statement. Several notices are issued to the workmen but they did not appear nor any claim

statement has been submitted on their behalf.

The case is fixed up today for filing Claim Statement, as last chance. The Management is appeared through

their authorized representative. On repeated calls at 11-30 a.m. none appeared for the Contractors and the workmen

nor any step has been taken on their behalf. As per postal record notice dated 20-12-2024 had been received

personally by the workmen but they did not turnup. It seems that the workmen are not interested to file any

Claim Statement.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1565

Considering the circumstances of this case it appears to me that ample opportunity has been provided but the

concerned workmen are not inclined to pursue this case. It is thus, abundantly clear that the workmen are not

interested to go ahead with the proceeding. The Reference Case is therefore disposed of in the form of a no dispute

award.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the Reference Case No.12 of 2023 is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award. Let copies of the

Award be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for

information and Notification.

AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 641.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenuxj ds iapkV (a03/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/74/2017-vkbZ vkj ((ch-II))]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2025

S.O. 641.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2018) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmednagar

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and

their workmen.

[No. L-12012/74/2017- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR.

BEFORE SAMEENA KHAN, MEMBER.

Reference (I.T.) No. 03/2018.

(CNR – MHIC-160000172018)

Zonal Manager,

Central Bank of India,

317, M.G. Road,

Pune – 411011.

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Aurangabad Plot No. 113, 5/5/72,

New Osmanpura, Aurangabad 431001.

2-A.

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Plot No. P-56, M.I.D.C.,

Shyadri Chowk, Nagapur,

Ahmednagar.

1566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Kotul Branch, At Post Kotul,

Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar.

… First Party.

VERSUS

Balasaheb Arjun Brave,

Age : 40 years, Occu. : Nil,

At Post Kotul, Tq. Akole,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

… Second Party.

APPEARANCE :-

Smt. T. T. Kakad, Ld. Adv. for First Party.

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

AWARD

(Delivered on 20/03/2025)

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

of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for the sake of brevity, referred to as ―the I.D. Act‖), has referred

the dispute between the parties for adjudication to this Industrial Tribunal, vide its order dated 09.01.2018.

The terms of Reference as per Schedule is as follows :-

“Whether the claim of the workman Shri. Balasaheb Arjun Brave, on the management of Central Bank

of India, Kotul Branch (1858) for absorbing him in the post of permanent full time Safai Karamchari is

justified? If yes, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

For the sake of brevity, the Second Party Workman Shri. Balasaheb Arjun Brave will be referred to as ‗ the

Workman‘, and the First Party Central Bank of India will be referred to as the ‗the Bank‘.

After the dispute was received for adjudication, notices were issued to the parties. In response thereof, the

Workman has filed his Statement of Claim at Exh. U-3 and amended Statement of Claim at Exh. UA-1. The facts of

the case as pleaded in the Statement of Claim by the Workman is crystallized as follows :-

Since the year 2002, the Workman was working with the Bank on daily wages as a Safai Karmachari /

Unskilled Worker / Peon Class-IV.

ii)

It is submitted that he has worked continuously since 2002 till 12.12.2017.

iii)

Since 12.12.2017, he was illegally terminated from the service by oral order, without following due

procedure of law.

iv)

At the time of his termination, the legal provisions as provided under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, and

Rules 80 and 81 of the I.D. Act are not followed. Therefore, the termination of the Workman is in breach of the

provisions of the I.D. Act, and thus illegal.

It is submitted that as per the Rules applicable to the Bank, it is obligatory to grant permanency to the

Workman who has worked for more than 45 days.

vi)

During his service tenure, the Workman has completed 240 days of service each year. The nature of work

performed by him is of permanent nature. He was performing the work like other permanent Safai Karmachari.

vii)

However, no permanency was granted to him and he was not absorbed in permanent employment in breach

of service Rules and agreement with the Union, on completion of 45 days of his service.

viii)

The Workman submits that he is belonging to Nav Buddha Caste. His birth date is 01.06.1978, and his

educational qualification is 10^th pass.

ix)

Other employees junior to the Workman are still retained in the services. Similarly after termination of the

Workman, one Mr. Ganesh Pardeshi, a new employee is taken in service by the Bank at Kotul Branch.

The Workman, therefore, prays to set aside the oral termination order since 12.12.2017, and reinstatement

him into service with continuity and full back wages with interest. It is also prayed that the Workman be absorbed in

the service as a permanent employee.

The Bank filed its Written Statement at Exh. C-5, inter alia resisting the claim of the Workman as not

maintainable. According to the Bank there is no cause of action for raising the dispute. There is no employer-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1567

employee relationship between the Bank and the Workman, and therefore, the Workman has no locus standi to raise

dispute.

It is further submitted that the Workman was never appointed by the Bank as its workman nor he has worked

on permanent basis with the Bank. There is no question of terminating him orally on 12.12.2017. The Workman was

appointed on daily wages for specific purpose as per availability of work. He was called to work whenever there was

necessity. Since work was not available with the Bank, no work was provided to the Workman. The Workman,

thereafter, secured permanent employment with more wages elsewhere, and therefore, he stopped coming for work on

his own.

It is further submitted that there is Statutory Recruitment Rules applicable for appointment with the Bank. As

per the Recruitment Rules, an advertisement is published and on application as per the advertisement, eligible

candidates are required to appear for examination and on the basis of merit list of said exam, the recruitment is done.

There is no Rule to grant absorption or permanency to the employee on completion of 45 days of service on daily

wage.

The Bank submits that whenever there is availability of work, the Workman would be called and allotted

work. The Workman being on daily wages, his contract of employment is for a particular day only, and therefore, it

cannot be said that the Workman was or is entitled for permanency. Moreover, the Regional Manager is not appointing

authority for the Bank.

With these contentions, it is prayed that the claim of the Workman be rejected.

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

O-5, and I have given my findings on them, for the reasons stated below, are as under :-

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether there exists employer-employee relation between the First Party and

the Second Party.

Affirmative.

Whether the claim of the Second Party Workman Mr. Balasaheb Arjun Brave,

on the Management of Central Bank of India, Kotul Branch for absorbing

him in the post of permanent full time Safai Karmachari, is justified?

Partly Affirmative.

If yes, to what relief the Second Party Workman is entitled for?

As per final Award.

10.

On behalf of the Workman, oral evidence is led at Exh. U-14 and Exh. U-25. The Workman has filed

documents on record along with lists Exh. U-7, U-11, U-15, Exh. U-17 is a Inspection Report with statement attached,

Exh. U-19, U-24, and Exh. U-26. On behalf of the Bank its Branch Manager is examined at Exh. C-9.

11.

Heard Learned Advocate Mr. K. Y. Modgekar on behalf of the Workman, and Learned Advocate Mrs. T. T.

Kakad on behalf of the Bank. Perused the order of Reference, Statement of Claim with amendment, Written

Statement, oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Both the parties have relied upon case laws in respect of

their respective contentions, which is also considered. Learned Advocate for both the parties took me through the

entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record and vehemently argued the matter in support of their respective

contentions.

12.

Learned Advocate Mr. K.Y. Modgekar, on behalf of the Workman vehemently argued the matter and

submitted that the Workman is illegally terminated from the service without following due process of law. He was in

continuous employment with the Bank, and during his service tenure from 2002 till his termination in 2017, he has

completed 240 days of service in each year. New person is employed on daily wages in his place. He further

strenuously argued that as per the settlement with Union functioning in the Bank, it is agreed that daily wager or

causal employee who worked for more than 45 days would be absorbed in permanent service. However, the Bank has

not complied with the terms of settlement with the Union. Therefore, the Workman is entitled for reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages and also be absorbed as a permanent Safai Karmachari / Peon.

In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following case laws :-

Jaggo V/s. Union of India and others, reported in 2025 (1) Bom.L.C. 261 (SC).

H.D. Singh V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 6417/NL/1983 dated 10.09.1985.

Trade-Wings Limited V/s. Prabhakar Dattararam Phodkar of Bombay and Ors, reported in 1992

LR (1) 480.

Umesh Saxena V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and others, reported in 1993 FLR (66) 566.

1568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Secondary Education, Nagpur and

another V/s. Mohd. Naim s/o Abdul Rahim, reported in 2009 (1) Bom. LC 453 (Bom).

Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel V/s. Municipal Council, Narkhed, Civil Appeal No. 6188 of 2019, arising

out of SLP (C) No. 8112 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019.

M.P. Electricity Board, Vidisha V/s. Hariram and another, reported in 2000 (87) FLR 750.

Samishta Dube V/s. City Board, Etawah & Another, reported in 1999 CLR 460.

General Manager, Telecom, Nagpur and others V/s. Naresh Brijlal Charote, reported in 2001 LAB I.C.

2127.

10)

Gauri Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 LLR 785.

11)

Bright Export Limited v/s. Central Board of Trustee, EPF Organisation, reported in 2016 LLR 487.

12)

Sanjay Kumar s/o Surendra Kumar Sharma V/s. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam,

reported in 2010 LLR 1065.

13)

Central Welfare Board and Others V/s. Ms. Anjali Bepari and Others, reported in 1996 LLR 1089.

14)

Vilas Agaji Pawar and others V/s. The Union of India Additional Solicitor General and Others, Writ

Petition No. 379 of 2024 dated

12^th January, 2024.

15)

Chief Conservator of Forests, Pune (T) and another, V/s. Janabai Sonaba Sarpale, reported in 2019 (1)

Bom.LC 18.

16)

K.V. Durga Prasad & Ors. V/s. Sri. Durgamalleshwara Swami Vari Devasthanam Vijayawada & Ors.,

reported in 1996 LLR 329.

17)

Spentex Industrial Limited V/s. Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur and others, reported in 2011 (131)

FLR 843.

13.

Per contra, Learned Advocate Mrs. T. T. Kakad on behalf of the Bank has vehemently submitted that being a

Nationalized Bank the Bank is governed by its Recruitment Rules. No recruitment or appointment in the Bank can be

done without following due procedure of recruitment. The Workman cannot be allowed back door entry as claimed in

this Reference. Further it was strenuously submitted that the Workman being a daily wager has no right of

employment and further to be absorbed in the service. He was not terminated from the service. On the other hand, he

himself stopped coming for work. The workman being a daily wager and not in regular employment with the Bank,

cannot be said to be a Workman of the Bank, and therefore, lacking relationship between the Bank and the Workman

of employer-employee, the demand of the Workman is without locus standi.

In support of her submissions, she relied upon the case in between Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors.

V/s. Umadevi and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806. She also filed on record a copy of Judgment and Award

dated 04.07.2019 passed in Reference (I.T.) No. 14 of 2015 by this Tribunal.

REASONS

As to Issue Nos. 1 to 3 :-

14.

Before proceeding for adjudication, it is worthwhile to consider the lis between the parties which is referred

to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government.

15.

Admittedly, as per the Order of Reference, the Reference is under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act by the

Central Government.

Section 10(1)(d) reads as, ―where the Central Government is of opinion that any Industrial Dispute exists or

is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing, refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with

or relevant to the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to

a Tribunal for adjudication.‖

Therefore, in terms of this provision, the dispute between the parties is referred for adjudication.

16.

Further as per Section 10(4) powers of the Tribunal to make an Award is restricted - (i) to the points of

dispute referred for adjudication and (ii) to the points incidental thereto. Therefore, this Sub-section indicates that

extent of jurisdiction of the adjudicatory Tribunal is confined to the points specified in the Order of Reference or

matters incidental thereof.

The jurisdiction of a Tribunal springs from the order of Reference and it has to confine its adjudication to the

specified Industrial Dispute and matters incidental thereof. This is beyond doubt on the language of Sub-section 4

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1569

itself and various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts. Therefore, in view of the express

language there can be no doubt that the Tribunal has no power to make an Award on points of dispute not referred for

adjudication or on a point which is not incidental to the point of dispute referred for adjudication. It is not open for the

Tribunal to travel beyond the terms of Reference. The Tribunal cannot expand its jurisdiction beyond the term of

Reference as mentioned in the Schedule.

17.

Having regard to the dictionary meaning of the word 'incidental', evidently matters which require

independent consideration or treatment and have their own importance cannot be considered ‗incidental‘. The matters

which are incidental to the Reference may, sometimes relate to questions which go to the root of the jurisdiction of

Tribunal. For example, question relating to the nature of activity of the employer as to whether it constitutes an

industry or not, question relating to maintainability etc. It is on the determination of this question that the jurisdiction

of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the Reference rests. Therefore, such questions may fall as matters incidental to

Reference.

18.

Adverting to the present Order of Reference dated 09.01.2018, the Schedule of Reference is for adjudication

of the dispute as to ―Whether the claim of the workman Shri. Balasaheb Arjun Brave, on the management of Central

Bank of India, Kotul Branch (1858) for absorbing him in the post of permanent full time Safai Karamchari is

justified? If yes, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖ Therefore, considering the Schedule as above,

the adjudication can only be confined to the dispute as referred for adjudication.

19.

On considering the pleadings of the Workman and reliefs claimed in his Statement of Claim, it is quite

apparent that he has pleaded and claimed relief regarding his alleged oral termination w.e.f. 12-12-2017, with a relief

of reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. In his pleading he has also specifically pleaded that

when he raised dispute to absorb him in services of the Bank, he was orally terminated from the services since 12-12-

2017. Therefore, as on the date when dispute was raised, the Workman was not terminated, and therefore, the dispute

of termination was not separately raised by him before concerned authority before the matter was Referred. The Order

of Reference also do not refer any dispute regarding the alleged termination of the Workman w.e.f. 12-12-2017.

Moreover, the said dispute regarding alleged termination of the Workman cannot be said to be an incidental issue. The

same was not part of the dispute which was raised for adjudication and referred by this Reference. Therefore,

considering the same would run counter to grain of the provisions of the I. D. Act.

20.

Hence, in view of the above factual aspects and legal proposition, I am confining the present dispute for

adjudication only as referred in the Schedule to Order of Reference dated 09.01.2018. My Learned Predecessor has

also framed issues in terms of Schedule with an incidental issue as to ―whether their exist employer-employee

relationship between the First Party Bank and Second Party Workman?‖ Therefore, the lis between the parties is

confined only to the Order of Reference and the entire pleadings and evidence which pertains to the alleged

termination of the Workman is not considered and discussed in this Award.

21.

It is not in dispute that the Workman was working with the Bank on daily wages as a Safai Karmachari,

initially since 2002. The Workman has filed on record an inspection report at Exh. U-17. A chart is annexed with the

said inspection report which reflects his working days from December-2015 to December-2017, and wages paid to

him during this period. Another chart is annexed which reflects that the Workman has worked with the Bank, Kotul

Branch in 2002 for 49 days, in 2004 for 3 days, in 2008 for 15 days, in 2009 for 5 days, in 2010 for 49 days, in 2011

for 116 days, and in 2012 for 186 days. Apart from this details of number of working days, nothing is placed on

record by the parties. Therefore, this uncontroverted statement filed on record is considered as a conclusive proof to

determine the tenure of employment of the Workman, and the number of days worked by him with the Bank. Apart

from this details of number of working days, the witness on behalf of the Bank has categorically admitted that the

Workman was initially appointed since 2007, and was paid wages till 12.12.2017.

22.

It is also not in controversy that the Bank on 09.08.2012, entered into a memorandum of settlement with the

All India Central Bank Employees‘ Federation (AICBEF) (Recognised Majority Union For Award Staff), by which it

was agreed that temporary / casual workers engaged in various branches of the Bank all over India, would be allowed

to participate in the recruitment process to be initiated in immediate future, but not in the subsequent process for

selection to the post of Safai-Karmachari-cum-sub-staff on full time basis along with fresh candidates. The criteria for

the casual workers engaged in various branches of the Bank to participate in the recruitment process was to produce

his satisfactory proof acceptable to the Bank to show that such worker have been engaged in subordinate cadre

(including as Safai Karmachari) and has put in a minimum 45 days service till a period of 12 months. Based on this

settlement, the Workman is claiming absorption with the Bank.

23.

Admittedly, the Bank is a Nationalized Bank. Admittedly, the recruitment in the Bank is governed by its

Recruitment Rules. The Workman in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that the Bank is a Nationalized

Bank functioning all over India. It is also admitted that the recruitment of employees in the Bank is through Central

Office, and for the purpose of such recruitment, an advertisement is published with terms and conditions and requisite

qualification. On the applications in response to the said advertisement, eligible candidates are selected who is to

undergo written examination as well as oral interview. Thereafter, the candidate is selected and issued with order of

1570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appointment. The Workman, at the time of entry to work as Safai Karmachari in the Bank, had not undergone any

such recruitment process. This fact is also admitted by the Workman in his cross-examination. It is also admitted by

him in his cross-examination that he was not issued with any written appointment order. He further admits that in

response to the subsequent advertisement of recruitment dated 22.12.2023, the worker who had applied for such

appointment were given relaxation in age, etc. However, the said advertisement could not reach its logical end and no

recruitment could take place as per the said advertisement. A copy of such application by the Workman to the Bank

for participation in the recruitment procedure in the year 2023 is filed on record along with list at Exh. U-26,

at serial No. 7.

24.

There is no doubt that the nature of work performed by the Workman is of continuous and permanent nature.

The Workman in his oral evidence has specifically mentioned name of a person who is appointed as daily wager after

his alleged termination. This fact is also admitted by the witness on behalf of the Bank in his cross-examination. The

witness admits that one Mr. Prasad is working on daily wages in the Bank after discontinuing the Workman. He

further admits that there is no permanent Sweeper or Peon in the Bank. Therefore, it is clear that as on today, no

person is working in the Bank as a Sweeper / Peon on permanent basis. It is also clear that after discontinuing the

Workman, he is replaced by another temporary / daily wage employee. The witness also admits that cleanliness in the

Bank is a essential service.

25.

Therefore, considering the oral evidence on record and on analysis of the same, the absorption of the

Workman in the Bank, it being a Nationalized Bank, amenable to Service Rule and bound by the settlement with

recognized Union, it would be legal, proper and justified to absorb the Workman in terms of memorandum of

settlement dated 09.08.2012 with the recognized Union. The said memorandum of settlement is filed on record by the

Workman at Exh. U-24, serial No. 6. Various communications by the Bank and the Union regarding implementation

of the said settlement dated 09.08.2012 are also filed on record by the Workman along with list at Exh. U-24, at serial

Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 13 and 14. These documents filed on record, undisputedly exhibits that the settlement between the

Bank and the recognized Union dated 09.08.2012 is not implemented as on today.

26.

The similar issue as in the present Reference, regarding absorption of casual employees in the Bank as per

the memorandum of settlement dated 09.08.2012 was dealt by the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Bench at Aurangabad, the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur and the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court. The latest Judgment on this issue is by the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad

in Writ Petition No. 379 of 2024, in which order is passed on 12.01.2024. In the said order dated 12.01.2024, the

Hon‘ble High Court has considered the Judgments in various Writ Petitions before the same Bench, before Hon‘ble

Bench at Nagpur and the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

27.

The said Judgment is necessary for consideration and adjudication of the present dispute between the parties.

In the facts as well as law, the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 379 of 2024 is squarely applicable to the dispute in this

Reference. The Petitioners in the said Writ Petition were also working as Safai Karmachari (casual workers) with the

Bank. The memorandum of settlement with the recognized Union dated 09.08.2012, permitting them to participate in

the recruitment process on the post of Safai Karmachari on full time basis along with fresh candidate, was in issue.

28.

The Hon‘ble High Court considered the earlier orders of the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 14281 of 2019 between Vilas Agaji Pawar and others V/s. Union of India

and others dated 30.08.2023. The Hon‘ble High Court also considered the similar matter wherein the Petitioner had

approached the Hon‘ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Nagpur vide Writ Petition No. 8275 of 2018

between Sandip Pralhad Ingole and others V/s. Central Bank of India and others. The said Writ Petition was

decided and partly allowed vide Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2019. This Judgment of the Hon‘ble Nagpur Bench

was in challenge before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2760 to 2761 of 2023. In the said Civil

Appeal, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.07.2023, confirmed the order of the Hon‘ble High Court of

Judicature at Bombay Bench At Nagpur.

29.

At this stage it is necessary to reproduce the observations and conclusions of the Hon‘ble High Court of

Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in its Judgment dated 12.01.2024 in Writ Petition No. 379 of 2024. The

relevant paragraphs which can be directly applicable to the present dispute and has nexus, are reproduced as follows :-

“9.

It is, thus, obvious that the issue before this Court and as was the issue before the Nagpur Bench,

is as regards the fate of these workers, who have been working for years together and have been shown to be

casual workers as Safai Karmacharis/ Kamgars. While dealing with this issue, the case turns upon the

clauses of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "MoS") between

the Respondent Bank and the recognized Union. As a background to the MoS, it needs mention that the

Respondent Bank had decided to recruit subordinate staff with nomenclature as Safai Karmachari-cum-

Sub Staff and/or Sub Staff. It is an admitted position that this Bank has been engaging temporaries and

casual workers as Safai Karmacharis for decades together and at various branches all over India.

10.

The recognized Union raised this issue on behalf of such employees and it was agreed between

the parties vide the MoS that the Bank should initiate a "One Time Measure" (hereinafter referred to as the

"OTM") for considering these workers for regularization. It is an admitted position, as set out in the MoS,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1571

that the Bank decided to adopt a "Pro Employee Initiative" and converted the Permanent Part Time Safai

Karmacharis (PTSKs) into full time workers with the designation Safai Karmachari-cum- Sub Staff w.e.f.

01.04.2011. This was the mode adopted with regard to those temporaries, who were earlier working for

decades and thereafter, their nomenclature was changed to Permanent Part Time Safai Karmacharis

(PTSKs). We have every reason to be astonished by this definition since no provision under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and presently, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, has created any new category of

workers as Permanent Part Time Safai Karmacharis.

11.

The MoS indicates that the Bank decided to recruit Safai Kamgars by following the due process

as a 'One Time Measure'. The recognized Union persuaded the Bank to adopt a humane approach and

provide an opportunity to such temporaries/ casual workers to settle their grievances/ disputes / demands

through an out of court mechanism. Keeping this in focus, the recognized Union and the Respondent Bank

agreed on the following modalities:-

"WHEREAS after a series of discussions, it has since been agreed by and between the Management and All

India Central Bank Employees' Federation (AICBEF) (Recognised Majority Union for Award Staff) that as

a one time measure such temporary/casual workers so engaged by various branches within the guidelines of

Central Office Management will be allowed to participate in the Recruitment Process which will be

Initiated. In the Immediate future (but not in the subsequent processes, if any) for selection to the post of

sub-ordinate staff with the designation 'Safai Karmachari-cum- sub-staff' and/or 'Sub-staff', on Full-Time

basis (as per the eligibility criteria) alongwith fresh candidates, subject to fulfilling all the following

conditions:

(i) Such temporary/casual worker should have been engaged in sub-ordinate cadre (including as Safai

Karmachari) and have put in a minimum 45 days service during a continuous period of 12 months:

(ii) The age of the candidate should have been between 18 to 26 (relaxable in eligible categories as per

rules) when they were initially engaged as temporary/casual worker.

(iii) The age of the candidate as on the date of this Settlement should not have been more than 45 years,

Irrespective of category (le., SC/ST/OBC/GEN).)

(iv) The candidate should produce satisfactory proof acceptable to the Bank in support of his/her claim of

having worked with the bank on temporary/casual basis for a minimum 45 days in a continuous period of

12 months.

(v) The Registration for employment with Employment Exchange by the candidate is preferred, but not

essential. Accordingly, the candidates having valid Registration with Employment Exchanges should attach

the duly attested cards/proof to this effect, at the time of applying for the post in terms of this Settlement.

(vi) In case of the candidate had hitherto filled cases in Courts/ALC 'RLC/CGIT etc. seeking absorption in

permanent employment in the Bank and such cases are still pending for final disposal, such candidates

should willingly and unconditionally withdraw such cases filed by them before different fora prior to

applying for participating in the Recruitment Process in which they are so allowed to participate in terms of

this Settlement for the post of Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff' and/or 'Sub-staff', subject to otherwise

being eligible as per the eligibility criteria prescribed for respective post, and @ declaration to this effect

should be Given along with an undertaking that he/she would abide by the results of the recruitment

process.

(vii) Notwithstanding what is stated above, where there are Awards/ judgments of any Tribunal / Courts

directing the Bank to include and consider any candidate! while conducting future process, such candidates

would be considered and allowed to appear in the interview process initiated in pursuance of this Settlement

irrespective of the age and other eligibility criteria provided under this Settlement subject however that in

any case the age at the time of interview should not be above 60 years.

(viii) The Recruitment for the post of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-sub'staff' end 'Sub-staff' under this

dispensation (i.e., for fresh candidates and also the candidates hitherto worked as temporary/causal worker

and being eligible to apply for the same under this Settlement), shall be done through personal Interview of

the eligible candidates by Committee/s to be constituted by the Management.

It is also agreed mutually that out of the vacancies of 'Sub-staff' so identified to be filled in through the

Recruitment Process that will be initiated in immediate future, the existing 'Safai Karmachari cum-sub-

staff' will be considered for conversion as 'Sub-staff' (Peon) (after following the due Process of conversion)

to the extent of 25% of vacancies of 'Sub- staff' (as per the relevant guidelines of Government of India)

under this Recruitment process only.

It is mutually understood and agreed that allowing the temporary/casual workers (being otherwise eligible

to participate under this Settlement) alongwith the immediate Recruitment Process which will be conducted

for selection of 'Safai Karmachari-cum-sub staff' and/or 'Sub-staff', is a one-time measure applicable only

1572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for this process under this Settlement and shall not be quoted as a precedent, in future. Further, such

temporary/casual workers who do not apply for the process under this dispensation (being otherwise eligible

to participate under this Settlement) for the reasons what-so-ever and/or those who, having participated in

the process but could not be selected therein, have no right/claim what-so-ever to be called again for such

process in succession or in future.

It is understood and agreed that the provisions of this settlement shall supercede the provisions of all

previous settlements, if any, In this regard."

ONE TIME MEASURE- LEGAL PROCESS

13.

It does not call for any debate that the judgment delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court

(five Judges Bench) in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1,

paved the way for regularization of long working temporaries/ casuals by introducing the principle of 'One

Time Measure' (OTM). By the said judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court concluded that such OTM

would be for those persons, who have been working regularly, though appointed irregularly. It has been

clarified that distinction between "irregular appointments" and "illegal appointments" would be that

irregular appointments are of those category of employees, who are not selected through a regular selection

process, but are otherwise legally eligible to be appointed. Illegal appointments would include those persons,

who may have been appointed through the regular process, but were inherently ineligible to be appointed.

The Honourable Supreme Court also dealt with the aspect of legitimate expectation of long standing

temporaries/ casual workers. It was then concluded that OTM shall be adopted by the concerned Authority

to ensure that such appointments are regularized.

14.

There is no dispute that the Respondent Bank and the recognized Union arrived at the MoS for

introducing OTM for temporaries/ casuals. - - - - - - - - - - .”

15.

Before the Nagpur Bench, in Sandip Pralhad Ingole (supra), it was concluded that the Bank is a

public sector undertaking and is obliged to perform a duty to act legally, reasonably and ensure fulfillment

of it's commitments under the industrial agreement. It is beyond debate that the settlement with a recognized

union assumes a character of a supreme document and that binds not only the signatories to the settlement,

but the entire establishment. The Nagpur Bench concluded that the Bank was under a commitment to

honour the MoS. Earlier recruitment drive was cancelled/ aborted by the communication dated 04.07.2014.

Since then, this is the first recruitment process vide the impugned advertisement published on the website of

the Respondent Bank titled as "Recruitment of Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-Staff and/or Sub Staff 2024-

2025". Insofar as the Petitioners and similarly placed persons in the State of Maharashtra are concerned,

the Bank published a notice in daily Marathi "Loksatta". It is, thus, apparent that after more than 11 years,

the Respondent Bank has decided to adopt OTM for recruiting Safai Karmacharis and Sub Staff.

16.

It is strenuously canvassed on behalf of the Respondent Bank that none of these candidates have

completed 240 days in continuous employment. Each one of them used to work for various spells over a

period of two months, three months or more and were replaced by a different batch of Safai Karmacharis.

Naturally, this raises a question as to whether, the work of Safai Karmacharis was a seasonal employment

with the Respondent Bank. This defies logic. It cannot be disputed that sweeping and cleaning the

establishments and branches of the Respondent Bank is a continuous nature of work having a perennial

character. By no stretch of imagination can it be termed or even attempted to be branded as seasonal

employment. If the work of cleaning and sweeping the establishments and branches is of a perennial

character, any argument contending that one batch of Safai Karmacharis worked for a particular duration

to be replaced by another batch of Safai Karmacharis for another spell/ duration, has to be rejected outright

keeping in view the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of

India and others, (1985) 4 SCC 201, State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others, (1992) 4 SCC

118 and Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. Bhojane Gopinath D., 2004 I CLR 502.

17.

The judgment of the Nagpur Bench in Sandip Pralhad Ingole (supra) was sought to be reviewed

and there is no dispute that the Review Application was dismissed vide the order dated 08.02.2021. The

judgment was carried to the Honourable Supreme Court by the Respondent Bank in Civil Appeal Nos.2760-

2761/2023 and by order dated 13.07.2023, the Civil Appeals preferred by the Respondent Bank were

dismissed with a reasoned order, which reads thus:-

"These appeals arise out of the orders dated 08.07.2019 and 08.02.2021 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in W.P. No. 8275 of 2018 and MCAST No. 19326 of 2019

respectively. The High Court, while allowing the writ petition, issued certain directions relying upon the

Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012 entered into between the Management- Bank and the

Employees' Federation which prompted/culminated into the Management- Bank issuing a Circular Letter

No. CO:HRD:IRP:2012:13:17 dated 14.08.2012. The directions read as follows:-

"i.

The writ petition is partly allowed.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1573

ii.

We direct to the respondent bank to fulfil its obligation under the Memorandum of Settlement

dated 9th August, 2012 imposing a duty to initiate the recruitment process only as one time measure for

selecting, from amongst casual and temporary workers, "Safai Karmachari cum Sub Staff" on full time

basis within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of order.

iii.

By issuing such directions, we have not taken away discretion of the bank to determine the

availability of the vacancies and to adopt a particular procedure for making recruitments or select or reject

candidates on the basis of performance and on merit and other similar factors.

iv. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to costs."

As per the said Memorandum of Settlement, it was agreed that the temporary and casual workers engaged

in the Bank and who have put in a minimum 45 days' service during a continuous period of 12 months may

be permitted to participate in the ensuing recruitment process for the selection of "Safai Karmachari-cum-

sub-staff" and/or 'Sub- Staff' as a one-time measure.

Considering the said Memorandum of Settlement, the High Court found that though there was some delay

in moving the writ petition, but looking to the obligation of the Bank, as agreed, which has not been

discharged in its right perspective, the above directions were issued. In fact, the High Court found that to

fulfill the obligations under the Memorandum of Settlement, the Bank had indeed initiated recruitment

process for selection of "Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff", but midway through, the process of recruitment

was cancelled for some of the regions.

In the said context, while allowing the writ petition, it was directed that the Bank shall fulfil its obligations

under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012 and initiate the recruitment process only as a one-

time measure for selecting from amongst the casual/ temporary workers, 'Safai Karmachari-cum- sub-staff'

on full time basis within a period of six months from the receipt of the order.

The High Court has further observed that, while issuing such a direction, the right of the Bank to

determine the availability of the vacancies and to adopt a particular procedure for making recruitments or

select or reject candidates on the basis of performance and on merit and other similar factors, has not been

taken away.

After hearing Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Bank and Mr. Rituraj Biswas,

learned counsel for the respondents, and considering the contents of the Memorandum of Settlement and

the obligation, which is required to be discharged by the Bank, we are of the opinion that the Management

Bank has not honoured its commitment given under the Memorandum of Settlement. In fact, the Bank had

taken steps to initiate the recruitment process in furtherance of the Settlement and by a subsequent

communication cancelled the process selectively for some of the regions. The High Court, while allowing

the petition, directed the Bank to fulfil its obligation within the time stipulated therein by the impugned

order(s). In our view, the High Court has not committed any error, while dealing with the terms of the

Memorandum of Settlement in passing the impugned order(s).

In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to interfere with the order(s) impugned. The appeals are,

accordingly, dismissed. However, the process of selection, as directed by the High Court, may now be

completed within a period of six months from today.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of."

18.

In view of the above, it is apparent that the Honourable Supreme Court concluded, in it's above

reproduced order dated 13.07.2023, that "In the said context, while allowing the writ petition, it was directed

that the Bank shall fulfil its obligations under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012 and initiate

the recruitment process only as a one-time measure for selecting from amongst the casual/ temporary

workers, 'Safai Karmachari-cum-sub-staff' on full time basis within a period of six months from the receipt

of the order." It was further noted that the High Court had permitted the Bank to adopt a particular

procedure for selecting or rejecting candidates on the basis of the performance and merit. The Honourable

Supreme Court, thereafter, recorded that "we are of the opinion that the Management Bank has not

honoured its commitment given under the Memorandum of Settlement. In fact, the Bank had taken steps to

initiate the recruitment process in furtherance of the Settlement and by a subsequent communication

cancelled the process selectively for some of the regions. The High Court, while allowing the petition,

directed the Bank to fulfil its obligation within the time stipulated therein by the impugned order(s). In our

view, the High Court has not committed any error, while dealing with the terms of the Memorandum of

Settlement in passing the impugned order(s)" .

19.

It is, thus, crystal clear that the OTM was meant only for those Safai Karmacharis or Sub-Staff,

who were already working with the Bank. These directions of the Honourable Supreme Court read with the

law laid down in Umadevi (supra), lead to a sine-qua-non that the only option available for the Bank was to

1574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ensure that the long serving employees as like the Petitioners at it's various establishments and branches in

India, were considered for the OTM.

CONCLUSIONS

27. - - - - - - - -.

28.

Considering the view expressed by this Court at Aurangabad in the order dated 30.08.2023

(supra), the order of the Nagpur Bench dated 08.07.2019 (supra) and the observations of the Honourable

Supreme Court in the order dated 13.07.2023 reproduced above, we deem it appropriate to direct the

Respondent Bank to lend a literal meaning to the term "One Time Measure" and initiate the recruitment

process for those employees, who are working as Safai Karmacharis/ temporaries/ casuals in the Safai

Karmachari cadre and Sub- Staff cadre in view of the MoS. It is also mentioned in the MoS (reproduced

above) that after such OTM, these candidates would not be allowed to participate in the recruitment process

which would be initiated by the Respondent Bank subsequently.”

30.

These observations and conclusions of the Hon‘ble High Court clearly covers the case of the Workman for

absorption. There cannot be any deviation than what is concluded by the Hon‘ble High Court as above, except for

implementation of terms and conditions in the memorandum of settlement with the recognized Union, which is the

service conditions between the parties. No other provisions of the I.D. Act or service Rules provides for such

absorption in service of the Bank, as claimed by the Workman.

31.

Advertisement for recruitment as a Safai Karmachari / Sub-staff / Peon published in the year 2024-25, is not

yet proceeded with. It has also come on record that there are many posts of Safai Karmachari to be filled in the Kotul

Branch (1858), but as on today, there is no permanent Safair Karmachari or Peon. However, such post is in existence

and it needs to be filled permanently by adhering to the recruitment process and by adhering to the memorandum of

settlement of 2012 with the recognized Union.

32.

I have considered the case laws filed on behalf of the both parties. The case laws filed by both the parties are

all considered by the Hon‘ble High Court in its Judgment dated 12.01.2024 in Writ Petition No. 379 of 2024, on

which I have placed my heavy reliance, and therefore, the case laws relied by both the parties are already considered.

33.

On behalf of the Workman, certain other case laws are relied upon, which deal with termination of service

and compliance of the provisions of the I.D. Act pertaining to retrenchment by the employer. However, as observed

earlier, the issue of alleged termination of the Workman is not within the scope of this Reference. Therefore, the case

laws in respect of retrenchment / termination are not relevant to the subject matter of the dispute.

34.

In view of the above, Issue No. 1 regarding existence of relationship of employer and employee between the

Workman and the Bank is proved and answered in Affirmative. Issue No. 2 is answered partly in affirmative. For

issue No. 3, I pass the following Order.

ORDER

The Reference is answered partly in affirmative.

The claim of the Workman Shri. Balasaheb Arjun Brave on the Management of the Bank, Kotul Branch

(1858), for absorbing him on the post of permanent full time Safai Karmachari is justified, subject to his participation

in the recruitment process and in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 09.08.2012 with the recognized

Union.

The Workman Shri. Balasaheb Arjun Brave is entitled for absorption on the post of Safai Karmachari / Sub-

staff or in other similar post, on participation in immediate recruitment process which would be initiated by the

Bank.

The Bank is further directed to consider the Second Party Workman in the recruitment process in accordance

with the terms of memorandum of settlement dated 09.08.2012, and if eligible and suitable, grant him appointment

on permanent basis.

No order as to costs.

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

necessary action.

SAMEENA ABDULMAJID KHAN, Member

Date : 20.03.2025. Industrial Court, Ahmednagar.

Argued on: 06.03.2025.

Judgment dictated on : 20.03.2025.

Judgment transcribed on: 26.03.2025.

Judgment checked & signed on: 27.03.2025.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1575

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2025

का.आ. 642.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; vgenuxj ds iapkV (a04/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y - 12012/75/2017-vkbZ vkj ((ch-II))]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2025

S.O. 642.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2018) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ahmednagar

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and

their workmen.

[No. L-12012/75/2017- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR.

BEFORE SAMEENA KHAN, MEMBER.

Reference (I.T.) No. 04/2018.

(CNR – MHIC-160000182018)

Zonal Manager,

Central Bank of India,

317, M.G. Road,

Pune – 411011.

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Aurangabad Plot No. 113, 5/5/72,

New Osmanpura, Aurangabad 431001.

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Branch – P.M.T. Loni, At Post Loni,

Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.

… First Party.

VERSUS

Kiran Suryabhan Kadu,

Age : 37 years, Occu. : Service,

At Post Pathare Budruk,

(Datta Mandir Kadu Wasti),

Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.

… Second Party.

APPEARANCE :-

Smt. T. T. Kakad, Ld. Adv. for First Party.

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

AWARD

(Delivered on 20/03/2025)

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

of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for the sake of brevity, referred to as ―the I.D. Act‖), has referred

the dispute between the parties for adjudication to this Industrial Tribunal, vide its order dated 09.01.2018.

1576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The terms of Reference as per Schedule is as follows :-

“Whether the claim of the workman Shri. Kiran Suryabhan Kadu, on the management of Central Bank of

India, PMT Loni, Utility Complex Branch for absorbing him in the post of permanent full time Safai

Karamchari is justified? If yes, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

For the sake of brevity, the Second Party Workman Shri. Kiran Suryabhan Kadu will be referred to as ‗ the

Workman‘, and the First Party Central Bank of India will be referred to as the ‗the Bank‘.

After the dispute was received for adjudication, notices were issued to the parties. In response thereof, the

Workman has filed his Statement of Claim at Exh. U-3. The facts of the case as pleaded in the Statement of Claim by

the Workman is crystallized as follows :-

Since 01.01.2004, the Workman is working with the Bank on daily wages as a Safai Karmachari / Unskilled

Worker / Peon Class-IV.

ii)

It is submitted that he has worked continuously since January-2004 till filing of the Statement of Claim.

iii)

The legal provisions as provided under Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H, and Rules 80 and 81 of the I.D. Act

are applicable to the Bank.

iv)

It is submitted that as per the Rules applicable to the Bank, it is obligatory to grant permanency to the

Workman who has worked for more than 45 days.

During his service tenure, the Workman has completed 240 days of service each year. The nature of work

performed by him is of permanent nature. He was performing the work like other permanent Safai Karmachari.

vi)

However, no permanency was granted to him and he was not absorbed in permanent employment in breach

of service Rules and agreement with the Union, on completion of 45 days of his service.

vii)

The Workman submits that he is belonging to Hindu Maratha Caste. His birth date is 19.05.1981, and his

educational qualification is 10^th pass.

viii)

Other employees junior to the Workman are still retained in the services.

ix)

The Workman, therefore, prays to be absorbed him in the service as a permanent employee with

consequential benefits.

The Bank filed its Written Statement at Exh. C-5, inter alia resisting the claim of the Workman as not

maintainable. According to the Bank there is no cause of action for raising the dispute. There is no employer-

employee relationship between the Bank and the Workman, and therefore, the Workman has no locus standi to raise

dispute.

It is further submitted that the Workman was never appointed by the Bank as its workman nor he has worked

on permanent basis with the Bank. The Workman is appointed on daily wages for specific purpose as per availability

of work. He is called to work whenever there was necessity.

It is further submitted that there is Statutory Recruitment Rules applicable for appointment with the Bank. As

per the Recruitment Rules, an advertisement is published and on application as per the advertisement, eligible

candidates are required to appear for examination and on the basis of merit list of said exam, the recruitment is done.

There is no Rule to grant absorption or permanency to the employee on completion of 45 days of service on daily

wage.

The Bank submits that whenever there is availability of work, the Workman would be called and allotted

work. The Workman being on daily wages, his contract of employment is for a particular day only, and therefore, it

cannot be said that the Workman was or is entitled for permanency. Moreover, the Regional Manager is not appointing

authority for the Bank.

With these contentions, it is prayed that the claim of the Workman be rejected.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, Issues have been framed by my Learned

Predecessor at Exh. O-5, and I have given my findings on them, for the reasons stated below, are as under :-

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Whether there exists employer-employee relation between the First Party and

the Second Party.

Affirmative.

Whether the claim of the Second Party Workman Mr. Kiran Suryabhan Kadu,

on the Management of Central Bank of India, PMT Loni, Utility Complex

Branch for absorbing him in the post of permanent full time Safai

Partly Affirmative.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1577

Karmachari, is justified?

If yes, to what relief the Second Party Workman is entitled for?

As per final Award.

10.

On behalf of the Workman, oral evidence is led at Exh. U-20 and Exh. U-25. The Workman has filed

documents on record along with lists Exh. U-7, U-11, Exh. U-13 is a Inspection Report with statement attached, Exh.

U-15, U-18, Exh. U-19 and Exh. U-22. On behalf of the Bank its Branch Manager is examined at Exh. C-11.

11.

Heard Learned Advocate Mr. K. Y. Modgekar on behalf of the Workman, and Learned Advocate Mrs. T. T.

Kakad on behalf of the Bank. Perused the order of Reference, Statement of Claim, Written Statement, oral as well as

documentary evidence on record. Both the parties have relied upon case laws in respect of their respective

contentions, which is also considered. Learned Advocate for both the parties took me through the entire oral as well as

documentary evidence on record and vehemently argued the matter in support of their respective contentions.

12.

Learned Advocate Mr. K.Y. Modgekar, on behalf of the Workman vehemently argued the matter and

submitted that the Workman is in continuous employment with the Bank, and during his service tenure from 2004 till

this date, he has completed 240 days of service in each year. He further strenuously argued that as per the settlement

with Union functioning in the Bank, it is agreed that daily wager or causal employee who worked for more than 45

days would be absorbed in permanent service. However, the Bank has not complied with the terms of settlement with

the Union. Therefore, the Workman is entitled for absorption as a permanent Safai Karmachari / Peon.

In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following case laws :-

Jaggo V/s. Union of India and others, reported in 2025 (1) Bom.L.C. 261 (SC).

H.D. Singh V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 6417/NL/1983 dated 10.09.1985.

Trade-Wings Limited V/s. Prabhakar Dattararam Phodkar of Bombay and Ors, reported in 1992 LR (1)

480.

Umesh Saxena V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and others, reported in 1993 FLR (66) 566.

Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Secondary Education, Nagpur and

another V/s. Mohd. Naim s/o Abdul Rahim, reported in 2009 (1) Bom. LC 453 (Bom).

Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel V/s. Municipal Council, Narkhed, Civil Appeal No. 6188 of 2019, arising out

of SLP (C) No. 8112 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019.

M.P. Electricity Board, Vidisha V/s. Hariram and another, reported in 2000 (87) FLR 750.

Samishta Dube V/s. City Board, Etawah & Another, reported in 1999 CLR 460.

General Manager, Telecom, Nagpur and others V/s. Naresh Brijlal Charote, reported in 2001

LAB I.C. 2127.

10)

Gauri Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 LLR 785.

11)

Bright Export Limited v/s. Central Board of Trustee, EPF Organisation, reported in 2016 LLR 487.

12)

Sanjay Kumar s/o Surendra Kumar Sharma V/s. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam,

reported in 2010 LLR 1065.

13)

Central Welfare Board and Others V/s. Ms. Anjali Bepari and Others, reported in 1996 LLR 1089.

14)

Vilas Agaji Pawar and others V/s. The Union of India Additional Solicitor General and Others, Writ

Petition No. 379 of 2024 dated 12^th January, 2024.

15)

Chief Conservator of Forests, Pune (T) and another, V/s. Janabai Sonaba Sarpale, reported in 2019 (1)

Bom.LC 18.

16)

K.V. Durga Prasad & Ors. V/s. Sri. Durgamalleshwara Swami Vari Devasthanam Vijayawada & Ors.,

reported in 1996 LLR 329.

17)

Spentex Industrial Limited V/s. Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur and others, reported in 2011 (131)

FLR 843.

13.

Per contra, Learned Advocate Mrs. T. T. Kakad on behalf of the Bank has vehemently submitted that being a

Nationalized Bank the Bank is governed by its Recruitment Rules. No recruitment or appointment in the Bank can be

done without following due procedure of recruitment. The Workman cannot be allowed back door entry as claimed in

this Reference. Further it was strenuously submitted that the Workman being a daily wager has no right of

1578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 26, 2025/VAISAKHA 6, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employment and further to be absorbed in the service. The workman being a daily wager and not in regular

employment with the Bank, cannot be said to be a Workman of the Bank, and therefore, lacking relationship between

the Bank and the Workman of employer-employee, the demand of the Workman is without locus standi.

In support of her submissions, she relied upon the case in between Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors.

V/s. Umadevi and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806. She also filed on record a copy of Judgment and Award

dated 04.07.2019 passed in Reference (I.T.) No. 14 of 2015 by this Tribunal.

REASONS

As to Issue Nos. 1 to 3 :-

14.

Before proceeding for adjudication, it is worthwhile to consider the lis between the parties which is referred

to this Tribunal by the Appropriate Government.

15.

Admittedly, as per the Order of Reference, the Reference is under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act by the

Central Government.

Section 10(1)(d) reads as, ―where the Central Government is of opinion that any Industrial Dispute exists or

is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing, refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with

or relevant to the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to

a Tribunal for adjudication.‖

Therefore, in terms of this provision, the dispute between the parties is referred for adjudication.

16.

Further as per Section 10(4) powers of the Tribunal to make an Award is restricted - (i) to the points of

dispute referred for adjudication and (ii) to the points incidental thereto. Therefore, this Sub-section indicates that

extent of jurisdiction of the adjudicatory Tribunal is confined to the points specified in the Order of Reference or

matters incidental thereof.

The jurisdiction of a Tribunal springs from the order of Reference and it has to confine its adjudication to the

specified Industrial Dispute and matters incidental thereof. This is beyond doubt on the language of Sub-section 4

itself and various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts. Therefore, in view of the express

language there can be no doubt that the Tribunal has no power to make an Award on points of dispute not referred for

adjudication or on a point which is not incidental to the point of dispute referred for adjudication. It is not open for the

Tribunal to travel beyond the terms of Reference. The Tribunal cannot expand its jurisdiction beyond the term of

Reference as mentioned in the Schedule.

17.

Having regard to the dictionary meaning of the word 'incidental', evidently matters which require

independent consideration or treatment and have their own importance cannot be considered ‗incidental‘. The matters

which are incidental to the Reference may, sometimes relate to questions which go to the root of the jurisdiction of

Tribunal. For example, question relating to the nature of activity of the employer as to whether it constitutes an

industry or not, question relating to maintainability etc. It is on the determination of this question that the jurisdiction

of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the Reference rests. Therefore, such questions may fall as matters incidental to

Reference.

18.

Adverting to the present Order of Reference dated 09.01.2018, the Schedule of Reference is for adjudication

of the dispute as to ―Whether the claim of the workman Shri. Kiran Suryabhan Kadu, on the management of Central

Bank of India, PMT Loni, Utility Complex Branch for absorbing him in the post of permanent full time Safai

Karamchari is justified? If yes, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖ Therefore, considering the

Schedule as above, the adjudication can only be confined to the dispute as referred for adjudication.

19.

On considering the pleadings of the Workman and reliefs claimed in his Statement of Claim, it is quite

apparent that he has pleaded and also claimed relief regarding equal pay for equal work. The same was not part of the

dispute which was raised for adjudication and referred by this Reference. Therefore, considering the same would run

counter to grain of the provisions of the I. D. Act.

20.

Hence, in view of the above factual aspects and legal proposition, I am confining the present dispute for

adjudication only as referred in the Schedule to Order of Reference dated 09.01.2018. My Learned Predecessor has

also framed issues in terms of Schedule with an incidental issue as to ―whether their exist employer-employee

relationship between the First Party Bank and Second Party Workman?‖ Therefore, the lis between the parties is

confined only to the Order of Reference and discussed in this Award.

21.

It is not in dispute that the Workman was working with the Bank on daily wages as a Safai Karmachari,

initially since 2004. The Workman has filed on record an inspection report at Exh. U-13. A chart is annexed with the

said inspection report which reflects his working days from January-2004 to December-2004, and wages paid to him

during this period which reflects that the Workman has worked with the Bank, P.M.T. Loni Branch in January-2004

for 02 days, in March-2004 for 10 days, in April-2004 for 09 days, in May-2004 for 05 days, in June-2004 for

04 days, in August-2004 for 04 days, in October-2004 for 05 days, in November-2004 for 05 days, and in

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 26, 2025, /वैिाख 6, 1947

1579

December-2004 for 06 days. Apart from this details of number of working days, the witness on behalf of the Bank has

categorically admitted that the Workman was initially appointed since 01.01.2004, and was paid wages till 2018.