2945 GI/2025

(2005)

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. 18]

नइ ददल् ली, मइ 11—मइ 17, 2025, िजनवार/वैिाख 21—वैिाख 27, 1947

No. 18]

NEW DELHI, MAY 11—MAY 17, 2025, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 21– VAISAKHA 27, 1947

आस 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—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 772.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

ईृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री जिवाकुमार जनजागुनी बेंजडगेरी, ऄजधविा को, धारवाड़

(कनााटक) के जवचारण न्यायालय में ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन (केंद्रीय ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत, केंद्रीय ऄन्वेषण

ब्यूरो द्वारा ईसे सौंृे गए मामलों के ऄजभयोजन का और आन मामलों से ईद्भूत, ऄृील, ृुनरीक्षण और ऄन्य मामलों का

जवजध द्वारा स्ट्थाजृत ऄृील या ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में संचालन करने हेतु जनयुजि की तारीख से तीन वषा की ऄवजध के

जलए या ऄगले अदेि तक, आनमें से जो भी ृूवातर हो, जविेष लोक ऄजभयोजक के प ृ में जनयुि करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/8/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-26052025-263370

CG-DL-W-26052025-263370

2006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 772.—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 Shivakumar Nijaguni Bendigeri,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor, for conducting prosecution of the cases as entrusted to him by the Central

Bureau of Investigation instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in the

trial courts at Dharwad (Karnataka) and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in appellate or

revisional courts established by law for a period of three years from the date of his appointment or till further order,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/8/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 13 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 773.—केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकजहत में यह अवश्यक प्रतीत होता है दक ृंजाब राज्य में बर ण्डा से

संगप र तक (बर ण्डा -संगप र ृाआृलाआन) ृेरोजलयम ृदाथा ृररवहन के जलए जहन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम काृोरेिन जलजमटेड,

द्वारा एक ृाआृलाआन जबछाइ जानी चाजहए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के प्रयोजन के जलए यह अवश्यक प्रतीत होता है दक ऐसी भूजम

में जो आस से ईृाबद्व ऄनुसूची में वर्मणत है, जजसमें ईि ृाआृलाआन जबछाऐ जाने का प्रस्ट्ताव है, ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का

ऄजान दकया जाए ;

ऄतः ऄब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान)

ऄजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की ईृ-धारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, ईस भूजम में

ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान करने के ऄृने अिय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोइ व्यजि, जो ईि ऄनुसूची में वर्मणत भूजम में जहतबद्ध है, ईस तारीख से जजसको आस ऄजधसूचना से युि भारत

के राजृत्र की प्रजतयााँ साधारण जनता को ईृलब्ध करा दी जाती है, आक्कीस ददन के भीतर भूजम के नीचे ृाआृलाआन

जबछाए जाने के जलए ईसमें ईृयोग के ऄजधकार के ऄजान के सम्बन्ध में श्री ऄजनल कुमार गगा, ृी.सी.एस.(जनवृत्त) सक्षम

प्राजधकारी जहन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम काृोरेिन जलजमटेड, बर ण्डा ररटेल क्षेत्रीय कायाालय, ऄबान एस्ट्टेट, फेस-II ृाटा-II,

बर ण्डा -151 001 (ृंजाब) को जलजखत रुृ में अक्षेृ भेज सकेगा।

ऄनुसूची

क्रम

सं.

गॉव का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

फूसमण्डी

230/1

(H.B.NO. 60)

230/2

231/1

231/2

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2007

क्रम

सं.

गॉव का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

ख.नं 233 और 231 के बीच मेंअरसीसी रास्ट्ता (232)

233

गुलाबगढ़

23//25

ईफा नाआवाला

24//21

(H.B.NO. 58)

24//22

24//23

24//24/1

24//24/2

24//25

37//4/2/1

37//4/2/2

37//5/1

37//5/2

37//6/1

36//10

36//9

36//8

36//7

ख.नं. 36//7 और 36//6 के बीच में फील्ड चैनल

36//6

35//10

35//9/2

35//9/1/1

35//9/1/2

35//12/2/1

35//12/2/2

35//12/2/3

35//8/1

35//8/2

35//13/1

35//13/2

2008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

क्रम

सं.

गॉव का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

35//14

35//15/1

35//15/2

34//11/1

34//11/2

34//12/1

34//12/2

34//13/1

34//13/2/1

34//13/2/2

34//7

ख.नं. 34//13 और 34//17 के बीच में (केनाल)

34//18/1

34//18/2

34//17/2/1

34//17/2/2

ख. नं. 34//17/2 और 34//17/1 के बीच में (सरकारी ऄस्ट्फालटेड

रास्ट्ता)

34//17/1/1

34//17/1/2

34//14

34//15/1

34//15/2

34//6/1

34//6/2

33//11

ख.नं. 33//11 और 33//12 के बीच में फील्ड चैनल

33//12

33//13/1

33//13/2

33//13/3

33//14

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2009

क्रम

सं.

गॉव का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

33//15/1

33//15/2

32//11

32//12

32//18

32//17/2

32//17/1/1

32//17/1/2

ख.नं. 32//17/2 और 32//17/1 के बीच में (सरकारी ऄस्ट्फालटेड रास्ट्ता)

101

ख.नं.32//17/2 और 32//17/1 के बीच में फील्ड चैनल 127

32//16

31//20

31//19

जजला: बर ण्डा

तुंगवाली

274//15

(H.B.NO.208)

274//16

460/6 (फील्ड चैनल)

273//20/2/1

273//20/2/2

273//20/1

273//19

273//22

273//23/1

273//23/2

276//4

276//5

460//5

277//10

277//9

277//12

2010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

क्रम

सं.

गॉव का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

277//13

ख.नं. 277//13 और 277//14 के बीच में रास्ट्ता (1000)

277//14

277//16

277//17

ख.नं. 277//16 और 278//20 के बीच में (फील्ड चैनल) 460/4

278//20

278//21

278//22

278//23

307//3

307//4/1

307//4/2

ख.नं. 307//3 और 307//4 के बीच में (फील्ड चैनल) 460/4

307//7

307//6/1

307//6/2

306//10

306//11

306//12

ख.नं. 306//12 और 306//13 के बीच में (फील्ड चैनल)

306//13

306//18

ख.नं. 306//18 और 306//17 के बीच में (फील्ड चैनल)

306//17

ख.नं.306//17 और 306//25/1 के बीच में (फील्ड चैनल)

306//25/1

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2011

क्रम

सं.

गॉव का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

306//25/2

305//21

305//22

[फा. सं. vkj-12042(11)@23@2021-vksvkj-II/इ-40547½]

'kf'k '®[kj flag, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 13th May, 2025

S.O. 773.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for

the transportation of Petroleum product from Bathinda to Sangrur (Bathinda – Sangrur Pipeline), a pipeline should be

laid in State of Punjab by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is

described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on

which the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the general public, object in

writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to the Shri. Anil Kumar

Garg P.C.S. (Retired), Competent Authority, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bathinda Retail Regional

Office, Urban Estate, Phase – II, Part – II, Bathinda – 151 001 (Punjab).

SCHEDULE

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

TEHSIL: BATHINDA DISTRICT: BATHINDA STATE: PUNJAB

PHOOS MANDI 230/1

(H.B.NO. 60)

230/2

231/1

231/2

In Bet.Khasra No. 233 & 231-RCC Road (232)

233

GULABGARH

23//25

URF NAIWALA

24//21

(H.B.NO. 58)

24//22

24//23

24//24/1

24//24/2

24//25

37//4/2/1

37//4/2/2

37//5/1

2012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

37//5/2

37//6/1

36//10

36//9

36//8

36//7

In Bet. Khasra No. 36//7 & 36//6 (Field Channel)

36//6

35//10

35//9/2

35//9/1/1

35//9/1/2

35//12/2/1

35//12/2/2

35//12/2/3

35//8/1

35//8/2

35//13/1

35//13/2

35//14

35//15/1

35//15/2

34//11/1

34//11/2

34//12/1

34//12/2

34//13/1

34//13/2/1

34//13/2/2

34//7

In Bet. Khasra No. 34//13& Khasra No. 34//17 (Canal)

34//18/1

34//18/2

34//17/2/1

34//17/2/2

In Bet. Khasra No. 34//17/2 & 34//17/1 (Asphalted Road)

34//17/1/1

34//17/1/2

34//14

34//15/1

34//15/2

34//6/1

34//6/2

33//11

In Bet Khasra No. 33//11 & 33//12 Field Channel

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2013

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

33//12

33//13/1

33//13/2

33//13/3

33//14

33//15/1

33//15/2

32//11

32//12

32//18

32//17/2

32//17/1/1

32//17/1/2

In Bet. Khasra No. 32//17/2 & 32//17/1 Asphalted Road

(101)

In Bet. Khasra No. 32//17/2 & 32//17/1 Field Channel (127)

32//16

31//20

31//19

TEHSIL: NATHANA DISTRICT: BATHINDA STATE: PUNJAB

TUNGWALI

274//15

(H.B. NO. 208)

274//16

460/6 (Field Channel)

273//20/2/1

273//20/2/2

273//20/1

273//19

273//22

273//23/1

273//23/2

276//4

276//5

460//5

277//10

277//9

277//12

277//13

In Bet. Khasra No. 277//13 & 277//14 (Cart Track) 1000

277//14

277//16

277//17

In Bet. Khasra No.277//16 & 278//20 (Field Channel) 460/4

278//20

278//21

278//22

2014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

278//23

307//3

307//4/1

307//4/2

In Bet. Khasra No. 307//3 & 307//4 (Field Channel) 460/4

307//7

307//6/1

307//6/2

306//10

306//11

306//12

In Bet. Khasra No. 306//12 & 306//13 (Field Channel)

306//13

306//18

In Bet. Khasra No. 306//18 & 306//17 (Field Channel)

306//17

In Bet. Khasra No. 306//17 & 306//25 /1(Field Channel)

306//25/1

306//25/2

305//21

305//22

[F. No. R-12042(11)/23/2021-OR-II/E-40547]

SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.

सड़क ृररवहन और राजमागा मंत्रालय

(राजभाषा ऄनुभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 9 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 774.—केंद्रीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में क्षेत्रीय कायाालय, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमागा प्राजधकरण, जिमला, जजसके 80% से ऄजधक

कमाचाररयों ने हहदी में कायासाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया है, को ऄजधसूजचत करती है।

[फा. सं. इ.-12012/1/2023-जवजवध/हहदी]

कमलेि चतुवेदी, संयुक् त सजचव

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Official Language Section)

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2025

S.O. 774.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Regional Office, National Highway Authority of

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

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

KAMLESH CHATURVEDI, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2015

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 9 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 775.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससा हहदुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मैससा प बल जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों

और श्री रामबाबू धाकड़, श्री भगवानलाल, श्री नरेंद्र प्रसाद, श्री भरत हसह के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 89/2018, 90/2018, 91/2018 and

92/2018) को जैसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

09.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l

[सं. एल-30012/4/2018-अइअर(एम), एल-30012/3/2018-अइअर(एम),

एल-30012/2/2018-अइअर(एम), एल-30012/1/2018-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2025

S.O. 775.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 89/2018, 90/2018, 91/2018 and 92/2018) of the Central

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

between the employers in relation to M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; M/s Roubal Security Agency,

and Shri Rambaboo Dhakad, Shri Bhagwanlal, Shri Narendra Prasad and Shri Bharat Singh which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 09.05.2025.

[No. L-30012/4/2018-IR(M), L-30012/3/2018-IR(M),

L-30012/2/2018-IR(M) and L-30012/1/2018-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

Present: P.K. Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

1. NO. CGIT/LC/R/89/2018

Shri Rambaboo Dhakad,

S/o Shri Kamarlal Dhakad,

R/o H.No. 2, Shiv Nagar,

Near Rahi Coal Depot, Nayagaon,

District – Ratlam (M.P.)

1. The Regional Manager,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Regional Office, POL Depot,

Indore (MP) – 453771

2. M/s Roubal Security Agency,

Thro’Brig. Gurpoal Sing, A-505,

Himanchal Apartments, Plot No. 21,

Sector – 05, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075

Leading Case....

2016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/2018

Shri Bhagwanlal,

S/o Late Narayan Parmar,

R/o Village – Bibdodh,

District – Ratlam (M.P.)

1. The Regional Manager,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Regional Office, POL Depot,

Indore (MP) – 453771

2. M/s Roubal Security Agency,

Thro’Brig. Gurpoal Sing, A-505,

Himanchal Apartments, Plot No. 21,

Sector – 05, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075

3. NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/2018

Shri Narendra Prasad,

S/o Late Shambhoo Lal Rajawat,

H.No. 82, Shakti Nagar, Gali No.2,

District – Ratlam (MP)

1. The Regional Manager,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Regional Office, POL Depot,

Indore (MP) – 453771

2. M/s Roubal Security Agency,

Thro’Brig. Gurpoal Sing, A-505,

Himanchal Apartments, Plot No. 21,

Sector – 05, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075

4. NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/2018

Shri Bharat Singh,

S/o Shri Bheru Singh Chouhan,

R/o CH/124, Suraj Mal Jain Nagar,

District – Ratlam (MP)

1. The Regional Manager,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Regional Office, POL Depot,

Indore (MP) – 453771

2. M/s Roubal Security Agency,

Thro’Brig. Gurpoal Sing, A-505,

Himanchal Apartments, Plot No. 21,

Sector – 05, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2017

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 28^th day of February-2025)

In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/89/2018

As per letter dated 29/10/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)

as per Notification No. L-30012/4/2018 - IR(M) dt. 29/10/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the demand of Shri Rambaboo Dhakad S/o Shri Kamarlal Dhakad vide letter dated 07.09.2016

to reinstate him in service with back wages against the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Ltd., Regional Office, POL Depot, Indore M/s Roubal Security Agency is legal, just & proper? If yes, what

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”

2. In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/90/2018

As per letter dated 29/10/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)

as per Notification No. L-30012/3/2018 - IR(M) dt. 29/10/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the demand of Shri Bhagwan Lal, S/o Late Shri Narayan Parmar vide letter dated 07.09.2016

to reinstate him in service with back wages against the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Regional Office, POL Depot, Indore/M/s Roubal Security Agency is legal, just & proper? If yes, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?"

In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/2018

As per letter dated 29/10/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)

as per Notification No. L-30012/2/2018 – IR(M) dt. 29/10/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the Management of Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In

terminating the service of Workman Shir Narendra Prasad working through M/s. Roubal Security Agency w.e.f.

28.03.2013 is just & proper? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

4. In the case NO. CGIT/LC/R/92/2018

As per letter dated 29/10/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)

as per Notification No. L-30012/1/2018 – IR(M) dt. 29/10/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the demand of Shri Bharat Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh Chouhan vide letter dated 07.09.2016

to reinstate him in service with back wages against the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Regional Office, POL Depot, Indore/ M/s Roubal Security Agency is legal, just & proper? If yes, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?"

Since, the parties, the disputes and facts in these four cases are identical and also the evidence is almost

the same, hence all these cases are being disposed by a common Judgment and Award.

Case of the Workmen in these cases is mainly that they were appointed through Security Agency in

February, 1997 on post of Security Guard and consistently worked with Management up to 2011. The contract of the

Management with the Security Agency was terminated in June, 2011, and thereafter these Workmen continued to

work with Management in their Ratlam Depot from July, 2011 till February, 2013. And were paid their wages directly

by the Management from July 2011 to March 2012 in their Bank Accounts. Management did not pay their wages from

April 2012 to February 2013, for this they have been personally raising their demands with Management and have

been their wages. It is further the case of these Workmen that after 16 years of continuous service with Management it

terminated their services without any notice or compensation which is in violation of Section 25F, 25G, 25H, 25M,

and 25N of the Act. Hence, is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. These workmen have claimed that by working for such a

long period with Management they have acquired permanent status which is not being recognized by Management.

They have claimed that holding the action of Management against law hey be held entitled to be reinstated in service

by Management with back wages and benefits.

Case of Management as taken by them in their Written Statement is that these Workmen were employed as

security guard through various contractors. The Management of HPCL engages contractors through Competitive

Bidding System for their non-core works on the lines issued by Government of India. In this respect there is no

notification issued by Central Government under Section 10 of Contract Labour Regulation and Regulation

Act, 1970, prohibiting the use of Contract Labour for the Work of Security Guard, hence the management is within its

rights to engage security guards through different contractors. It is further the case of Management that it has its depot

in Ratlam on land leased out to them by Railways and this lease expired in March 2012, and process of surrendering

2018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the land to the Railway started thereafter and the Depot at Ratlam was closed after surrender of the land in

March 2012. Management has denied that these Workmen were engaged by them from June 2011 to February 2013 as

claimed by them. Management has thus prayed that the reference be answered against the Workmen.

The Workmen have filed their rejoinders in which they have reiterated their allegations taken in their

statement of claims.

In evidence, the Workmen have filed their affidavits separately in the cases they have been cross-examined

by Management. The Workmen have proved it photocopy and original documents, marked Exhibit W-1 to W-62, to be

referred to as and when require.

Management has filed affidavit of their witness Amit Kumar Gadhodiya, Chief Regional Manager Retail

and has proved documents Exhibit M-1 to M-5 to refer to as and when required.

It is further to mention here that the Workmen side filed application dated 30.08.2022 seeking direction to

file original attendance register, register of duty and payment register and as well payment registers of the Workmen

from June, 2011 to February, 2013. This application was decided after hearing vide order dated 30.08.2022. The

management was directed to file an affidavit of summon authorized on their behalf if the documents were not granted

or not available with Management. The workmen side was also granted liberty to lead secondary evidence with

respect to these documents in case these documents are not filed by Management under direction of this Tribunal. The

Management filed affidavit dated 13.12.2022 of Amit Kumar Gaghodia who stated that these document did not exist

with them.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. K.B. Singh on behalf of the Workmen

in these cases, have also heard argument of Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair assisted by Mr. Neeraj Kevat on

behalf of Management. The Workmen side has filed written arguments also. I have gone through the written

arguments as well the record.

Admitted between the parties is that fact that these Workmen worked as Contract Labour with

Management since February 1997 to June 2011. Case of the Workmen is that the Contract of outsourcing agency was

closed in 2011 but they continued to work as Security Guards from July 2011 to February 2013 i.e. 28.02.2013 when

their services were terminated by Management. It further their case that during this period. They worked as employees

of Management and were paid their wages by Management from July 2011 to March 2012 through their Bank

Accounts. Management with held their wages salary from April, 2012 to February, 2013 for which they have been

consistently raising their demands and have been filed various applications/ representations.

Management has denied this allegation of Workmen with case that they have not been engaged by

Management directly by them at any point of time.

The Workmen who have cross-examined themselves as witness have corroborated their case in their

affidavits filed as their examination-in-chief. They are consistent on this point in their cross-examination by

Management. Their case is further supported by photocopy documents Exhibit W-4 to W-12. Which are Salary

Cheques and Letters issued by Management to these Workmen for the Period July 2011 to February 2012. When

confronted with these payments, the Management witness has stated in his cross-examination that these were the

payments made by Management to these employees because of failure of the contractor to pay wages but he further

states that he is not sure about this. Learned Senior Counsel for Management has also submitted his arguments on this

line but, in absence of any corroborative evidence, this argument cannot be accepted. The management side has filed a

photocopy of Work agreement said to be executed between them with Security Agency which is vacant spaces which

does not show as to on which date this agreement was signed and till which date this agreement is in force. This

document is M1/3, management has further two photocopy documents which is M1/5, which are said to be the

Monthly Bills raised by the Security Agency for the month of July 2011, and August 2011. But, in absence of

evidence to the effect with the Contract was existing in July 2011 and August 2011, that too when the workmen side

has specifically pleaded that the contract ended in June 2011, only these bills, not corroborated by evidence of

payment of amount in these bills by Management to the Contractor are of no significance. As has been stated by

Management for the period July, 2011 to March, 2012. Hence, in these facts, it cannot be assumed that management

made these payments in discharge of their liability as Principal employer. The Workmen witnesses have stated that

they have been claiming their wages from April, 2012 to March, 2013 in their statements and are consistent in their

cross-examination on this point further the proved documents exhibit W-14 to W-29, Exhibit W-26 corroborated their

statement on this point.

Hence, from the above discussion, the case of the Workmen that they continuously worked as Security

Guards with the Management from February, 1997 to June, 2011 as contract Labour and from July 2011 to

March 2012 as employees of management is held proved.

Since, it is not the case of the Management that these Workmen were paid any retrenchment

compensation, termination of their services is held against law.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2019

As regards to relief, admissible to these Workmen it has been submitted from the side of Management that

these have not be appointed against any sanctioned vacancy following recruitment process, the activities on the

Ratlam site also have been closed, hence they are not entitled to be reinstated.

On the other hand, it has been submitted from the side of workmen that in the case in hand, Management

has engaged these workmen as contract Labour from 1997 to 2011 and as its employees from July 2011 to

March 2013, they have matured their right to be permanent and Management has adopted unfair labour practice by

not granting them status of permanent employees and terminating their services without notice or compensation.

Hence, they should be held entitled to be reinstated. Workmen side has relied on two judgments of Hon’ble the

Supreme Court -

1. Ranveer Singh V.s. Executive Engineer (2021) 14 SCC 851.

2. Jaggo V.s. Union of India, relied by Workmen side. The following paragraphs are being reproduced as

follows:

―8. On behalf of the appellants, the following arguments have been advanced before us: (i). Continuous and

Substantive Engagement: The appellants emphasize their long, uninterrupted service spanning well over a decade—

and in some instances, exceeding two decades. They argue that their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based

but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent’s offices.

(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities— such as cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance tasks—

were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and functional work

environment, effectively aligning with roles typically associated with regular posts.

(iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout their tenure, the appellants SLP(C) NO.5580 of 2024 ETC. Page 8

of 29 were never issued any warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their work was consistently satisfactory,

and there was no indication from the respondents that their performance was not satisfactory or required

improvement.

iv). Compliance with „Uma Devi‟ Guidelines: The appellants assert that their appointments were not ―illegal‖ but at

most ―irregular.‖ Drawing on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi , they submit

that long-serving employees in irregular appointments—who fulfil essential, sanctioned functions—are entitled to

consideration for regularization.

(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point out that individuals with fewer years of service or

similar engagements have been regularized. They contend that denying them the same benefit, despite their longer

service and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

(vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The appellants reject the respondents’ reliance on formal

educational requirements, noting that such criteria were never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work does

not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue that retrospectively imposing such qualifications is unjustified

given their proven capability over many years.

(vii).Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on

their initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive reality of their long, integral service. They maintain

that fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for their regularization rather than abrupt termination .

On the other hand, the following primary arguments have been advanced before us on behalf of the Respondents:

(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time,

contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time.

(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned posts.

According to the respondents, without sanctioned vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or absorption

into the permanent workforce.

(iii). Non-Compliance with „Uma Devi‟ Criteria: Relying heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi

(supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They

emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized.

(iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend that even if the appellants were to be considered for

regular appointments, they do not possess the minimum educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment.

This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being absorbed into regular service.

(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource the

relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate administrative

policy decision aimed at improving efficiency and cannot be interfered with by the courts.

(vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the respondents underscore that no employee, merely by

virtue of long-standing temporary or part time engagement, acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain

2020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the appellants’ claims are devoid of any legal entitlement and that the High Court was correct in dismissing their

petition.

10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the

appellants’ long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside

merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be

considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence

suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route.

11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to

the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as

Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the

office premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas—a

set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in

the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance

tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.

12. Despite being labelled as ―part-time workers,‖ the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and

continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was

not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically

associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks

during the appellants’ tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. The claim by the respondents that

these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and

fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as

regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent

outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants’ termination demonstrates the inherent need

for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further

underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

14. The abrupt termination of the appellants’ services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the

Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or

explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual

employees are entitled to a hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service

records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided

any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.

15. Furthermore, the respondents’ conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of

judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona

fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents’

unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants’ rightful claims to regularization.

16. The appellants‟ consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization.

At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or

performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration,

though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory

performance. The respondents‟ belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and

lacks credibility.

17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature

of duties the appellants performed—cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening—does not inherently mandate formal

educational prerequisites.

It would be unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of

their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were

not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants’ long-standing satisfactory performance itself

attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an

unreasonable hurdle.‖

…………………………………………………………..

20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have

rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said

judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.

However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly ―irregular,‖ and where employees had served

continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane

resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2021

on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding

fair regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors. , it

was held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose

appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a

considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgement have been

reproduced below: ―

6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand,

given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The

reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have

accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification

for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which

distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).

7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between ―irregular‖ and ―illegal‖ appointments

underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with

the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of

regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case…‖

21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants’ engagements and the outsourcing

decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of

employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their

appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or

because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader

systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig

economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits,

job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour

standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even

greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in

misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets

a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated

for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6

encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and

social International Labour Organization- Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises

and Social Policy. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security,

particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment.

24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation serves as a

pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent

providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying

them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,

common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large

Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a

means of avoiding payment of benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that

the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment

status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such

misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face

multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address

short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long term obligations owed to

employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the

functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of

regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular

employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are

frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of

natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of

their service.

2022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill

development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity

between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary

employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates

exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension,

provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security

subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen

circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure

appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or

misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ―illegal‖

and ―irregular‖ appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in

duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as

a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta

to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely

lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to

argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit

acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit

and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in

providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when

their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also

exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment

practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold

the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards

and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour

practices in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High

Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent:

i. The termination orders dated 27.10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and

their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back

wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and

the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits. ―

The facts of the case in hand are almost similar to the facts of case of Jaggo (supra). 14.

Following para of another judgment of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs

Union of India in WPA27693/2024 are being reproduced as follows.-

―Thus in the guidelines of the Supreme Court, to consider a prayer for regularization of a casual worker the criterias

are:- i. Length of service, ii. Whether working in the vacancy of a permanent post. iii. Whether the worker carried out

the duties of a regular employee for a substantial period of his service. iv. Etc. 15. Reduction of work load (if any)

while still on job on regular basis as a casual worker for a considerable period is not a consideration while deciding

the right of a casual worker claiming regularization.‖

In the light of the above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows-

AWARD

Holding the claim of the workmen Shri Rambaboo Dhakad S/o Shri Kamarlal Dhakad, Shri Bhagwan

Lal, S/o Late Shri Narayan Parmar, Shri Narendra Prasad & Shri Bharat Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh Chouhan

to reinstate them in service against the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Regional Office,

POL Depot, Indore legal, just & proper, they are held not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the

period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same

would be counted for their post-retiral benefits. The references above mentioned stand answered accordingly. Copy

of this Judgment and Award be placed on the file of all the cases.

No order as to cost.

DATE:-28/02/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2023

नइ ददल्ली, 9 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 776.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससा हहदुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ऄरुण यादोराव नंदनवार

के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- 04/2017) को जैसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

09.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l

[सं. एल-30012/32/2016-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2025

S.O. 776.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 04/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Shri Arun Yadaorao Nandanwar which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 09.05.2025.

[No. L-30012/32/2016-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/04/2017

Present: P.K. Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Shri Arun Yadaorao Nandanwar,

R/o 414, Shree Nagar,

The Empress Mills Co-op Society Ltd.,

Ring Road, Nagpur - 440015

Workman

1. The Director Marketing,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Hindustan Bhawan, 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg,

Ballard Pears, Mumbai – 400001

2. The General Manager (Retail), West Zone,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,

Richardson & Cruddas Buidling,

Sir JJ Road, Byculla, Mumbai - 400008

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 05^thday of March -2025)

As per letter dated 14/12/2016 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-30012/32/2016-IR(M) dt. 14/12/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:

2024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. “Whether the punishment of „Dismissal‟ given w.e.f. 02.07.2012 to Shri Arjun Yadaorao Nandanwar,

who was working as Sr. Admn. Assistant, at Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) POL, Depot,

Bhitoni, Jabalpur Dist., is legal, proper and justified or not?

2. Sh. Arun Yadaorao Nandanwar, whether entitled for reinstatement into services of HPCL

w.e.f. 02.07.2012, with back wages and all attendant benefits or not? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”

Notices were issued to the parties after registering a case on the basis of reference. They appeared and

filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

Facts connected in brief are mainly that the workman was served a charge-sheet dated 11.05.2009 on 15.05.2009,

wherein following charges were leveled against him –

1. Circumventing the procedure by preparing cash receipts and manually feeding the bank deposit slips by

using ―bank deposit slip update option‖ resulting into non appearance of applicant of such instruments in any

of the bank deposit slips and also not depositing with bank, as result whereof the respective dealers/

customers got credit and lifted the product on the basis of the same, though not credit facility was being

actually received by the corporation.

2. Fraudulently preparing cash receipts in the JDE system from the workman own transaction ID in the name of

M/S. Prayagraj Gas & Domestic Appliances with fictitious cheque numbers, though no such cheque was

issued by the dealer in favour of the management, thus enabling the dealer to unlawfully gain and causing

loss to the corporation, which is misconduct under Rule 31(4), 31(5), 31(9), 31(20) and 31(38) of the

standing orders.

A departmental enquiry was conducted by the management with respect to the charges which was

against the Rules and Principles of Natural Justice. It was conducted in an arbitrary manner no proper opportunity

of hearing was granted to the workman. The documents demanded by the workman vide his letter dated

15.10.2010, were not supplied to him resulting into prejudice to him and deprived him to properly defend his

case. The prayer of the workman to examined witness on his behalf was not granted, the conduct of the enquiry

officer was not fair. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 31.03.2011 wrongly holding the charges

against the workman proved. The disciplinary authority passed the punishment order ignoring representation of

the workman on the enquiry report. The appellate authority dismissed appeal without giving the workman an

opportunity of hearing.

Also, it is the case of Workman that, the charges were wrongly held proved by the enquiry officer and

wrongly accepted as proved by the Disciplinary Authority as well the punishment granted was also

disproportionate to the charge.

Rebutting the allegations, management has taken a case that before enquiry was ordered, the

workman was given opportunity to have his side on the charge-sheet, after serving on him, a copy of the charge-

sheet. He did file his reply dated 11.05.2009 on the charge-sheet which was found not satisfactory and it was

decided to conduct a departmental enquiry into the charges, accordingly enquiry officer and presenting officer

were appointed by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry started from 15.09.2009 to 15.03.2011 in 9 dates. The

workman was supplied the documents which he had asked and which the enquiry officer had ordered the

management to produce. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report. The disciplinary authority, after

getting representation of the workman, imposed the punishment order and the appellate authority dismissed the

appeal as per law.

According to Management, the charges were rightly held proved and the punishment was also proportionate

to the charge proved.

On the basis of pleadings following preliminary issue was framed –

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper?

In evidence on this preliminary issue, the workman filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief, he was

crossed examined by management. Management filed affidavit of its witness as his examination-in-chief. He was

also cross examined by workman side.

The management filed original enquiry papers and proved.

After hearing the argument of learned Counsel Shri R.N. Sen and for workman and learned Senior

Counsel Shri Anoop Nair. Workman side has filed written argument and having gone

through the written argument as well the record in the light of rival arguments, this issue was decided against the

workman holding the departmental enquiry conducted legal and proper. This order is part of this Judgment

and Award.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2025

Following other additional issues were framed vide order dated 13.03.2024:-

1. Whether the charges are proved from the evidence in enquiry.

2. Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charges.

3. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief.

Parties were directed to file their evidence on these additional issues only.

The workman side filed affidavit in evidence on additional issues. Management did not file any additional

evidence. I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Workman Mr. R.N. Sen and Learned Senior Counsel

Mr. Anoop Nair, assisted by Mr. Neeraj Kewat for workman. Workman side has filed written arguments also.

I have gone through the written arguments and the record.

Additional issue No. 1 –

Charges against the Workman have been detailed earlier. The settled preposition of law with respect to prove

of charges in a Departmental Enquiry is that, the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as it is required

to be proved in a criminal trial.

Rather, the charges in the departmental enquiry are required to be the proved to the extent of reasonable

probability only. Following decisions are been referred and the relevant paragraphs are been reproduced in this

respect.

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

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

vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

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

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

and trial of criminal case. "

Now looking into the finding of enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority with respect to proof of

charges the main points of argument from the side of Workman is that no rule on his part were proved during the

enquiry, the soul duty to supervise the transactions was with the Deputy Manager Finance who was let go. Further,

certain witness namely viz. Rakesh Vamnyan who had specific roles on the whole charges and some other witness as

named by the Workman in its Written Argument were not cross-examined.

The Workman was at liberty to pray for examination of this witness as defense witness during the enquiry which he

did not proved. Secondly, the findings of the enquiry officer are to be looked into on the basis of evidence collected

during the enquiry and not on the basis of evidence which was not collected during the enquiry.

As it is evident from the evidence in Enquiry perused by me that Management witness have stated about the

specific rules of the Workman during the Enquiry which is corroborated by documentary evidences. In find no

occasion to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer with respect to the involvement of the Workman in the

Alleged transactions constituting misconduct. Hence, holding the finding of Enquiry Officer with respect to prove of

charges correct in law and fact the charges referred are held proved against the Workman.

Additional issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.

Additional Issue No. 2 –

It has been submitted from the side of Workman that he has been awarded maximum punishment inspite of

his otherwise unblemished service record.

Learned Senior Counsel for management has countered this submission with an argument that maximum

punishment may be awarded for a single misconduct also depending on the nature of the misconduct. As submitted by

him, the charges proved are with respect to loss of money to the employees. The conduct of the Workman is an act of

moral turpitude, hence the Learned Counsel for Management has defended the Punishment with this argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed appropriate

punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

position in the following words:

“11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

making process and not the decision.

12.

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

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2027

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

cogent reasons in support thereof.‖

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

position as follows:

“8.

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

result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the

punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found

to be proved.”

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

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

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

15.

Hon‘ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M. Lad

(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

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

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

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

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

discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of

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

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

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

reappraisal of facts.

Needless to point out that the act of putting employer‘s money to jeopardy speaks ill of the honesty and

integrity of the workman concerned. This is definitely an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, which leads to

loss of faith in the workman. In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has

been observed that:

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

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

discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence,

reinstatement cannot be directed.‖

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

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

confidence in the employee, observing that:

“(i)

the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence;

(ii) by abusing such position, be commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and

(iii) to continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing the inconvenient to the employee, or

would be detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective,

based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension

in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and

proved.”

In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others AIR 2005 SC 3272, repelled the contention

that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he can be removed

from service in a case of loss of confidence.

17.

The act of dishonesty or fraud or misappropriation lowers down the reputation of employer in public. The

public loose their confidence in the company, which affects business and finally the national economy.

18.

Hon‘ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:

“7.

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

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

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

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

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

inquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find

out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or findings, on

the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of

2028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

fide or based on extraneous considerations.”

As it comes out from the nature of the transactions that there are repeated transactions involving acts of

moral turpitude committed by the Workman which resulting into loss. The Misconduct reflects lack of integrity with

the Workman and lack of devotion towards duty. Keeping in view the seriousness of the charges proved the

punishment cannot be held to be disproportionate to the charges proved. Hence holding the punishment

disproportionate to the charges proved, and additional issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

Additional Issue No. 3 –

In the light of above discussions and finding, the additional issue No. 3 is answered against the Workman

holding him entitled to no relief.

On the basis of above findings and discussion the reference is answered as follows.

AWARD

The punishment of dismissal given w.e.f. 02.07.2012 to Shri Arun Yadaorao Nandanwar, who was working as

Senior Administrative Assistant, at Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) POL, Depot, Bhitoni,

Jabalpur District, is held legal, proper and justified .

Shri Arun Yadaorao Nandanwar,, is held entitled to no relief.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 05/03/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 9 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 777.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससा हहदुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ऄजनल भानुदास

नागराले, श्रीमती सुनीता ऄजनल नागराले (ृत्नी), जप्रयंका ऄजनल नागराले (बेटी) और प्रयाग ऄजनल नागराले (बेटा) के

बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- 03/2017) को जैसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकाजित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

09.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l

[सं. एल-30012/31/2016-अइअर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th May, 2025

S.O. 777.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 03/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

to M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Shri Anil Bhanudas Nagrale, Smt. Sunita Anil Nagrale

(wife), Priyanka Anil Nagrale (daughter) and Prayag Anil Nagrale (son) which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 09.05.2025.

[No. L-30012/31/2016-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/03/2017

Present: P.K. Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Shri Anil Bhanudas Nagrale,

R/o Plot NO. 110 Pawan Bhoomi

Vardha Road Nagpur - 440025 Died during

proceedings and represented by Legal Representatives-

1/1 Smt. Sunita Anil Nagrale (wife)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2029

1/2 Priyanka Anil Nagrale (daughter)

1/3 Prayag Anil Nagrale (son)

Workman

3. The Director Marketing,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Hindustan Bhawan, 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg,

Ballard Pears, Mumbai – 400001

4. The General Manager (Retail), West Zone,

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,

Richardson & Cruddas Buidling,

Sir JJ Road, Byculla, Mumbai - 400008

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 05^thday of March -2025)

As per letter dated 14/12/2016 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-30012/31/2016-IR(M) dt. 14/12/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:

1. “Whether the punishment of “Dismissal” given w.e.f. 2-7-2012, to Anil Bhanudas Nagrale, who was

working as Chief Admn. Assistant‟ at Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) Regional Office, Jabalpur is

legal, proper and justified or not?

2. Sh. Anil Bhanudas Nagrale, whether entitled for reinstatement into services of HPCL w.e.f. 2-7-2012,

with back wages and all attendant benefits or not? If not, to what relief he is entitled?”

Notices were issued to the parties after registering a case on the basis of reference. They appeared and filed

their respective statements of claim and defense.

Facts connected in brief are mainly that the workman was served a charge-sheet dated 11.05.2009, wherein

following charges were leveled against him –

3. Circumventing the procedure by preparing cash receipts and manually feeding the bank deposit slips by

using “bank deposit slip update option” resulting into non appearance of applicant of such instruments in

any of the bank deposit slips and also not depositing with bank, as result whereof the respective dealers/

customers got credit and lifted the product on the basis of the same, though not credit facility was being

actually received by the corporation.

4. Fraudulently preparing cash receipts in the JDE system from the workman own transaction ID in the

name of M/S. Prayagraj Gas & Domestic Appliances with fictitious cheque numbers, though no such

cheque was issued by the dealer in favour of the management, thus enabling the dealer to unlawfully gain

and causing loss to the corporation, which is misconduct under Rule 31(4), 31(5), 31(9), 31(20) and

31(38) of the standing orders.

A departmental enquiry was conducted by the management with respect to the charges which was, according

to the workman, against the Rules and Principles of Natural Justice. It was conducted in an arbitrary manner no

proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the workman. The documents demanded by the workman, were not

supplied to him resulting into prejudice to him and deprived him to properly defend his case. The prayer of the

workman to examine witness on his behalf was not granted, the conduct of the enquiry officer was not fair. The

enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report, wrongly holding the charges against the workman proved. The

disciplinary authority passed the punishment order ignoring representation of the workman on the enquiry report.

The appellate authority dismissed appeal without giving the workman an opportunity of hearing.

Also, it is the case of Workman that, the charges were wrongly held proved by the enquiry officer and

wrongly accepted as proved by the Disciplinary Authority as well the punishment granted was also

disproportionate to the charge.

Rebutting the allegations, management has taken a case that before enquiry was ordered, the workman was

given opportunity to have his side on the charge-sheet, after serving on him, a copy of the charge-sheet. He did

2030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 17, 2025/VAISAKHA 27, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

file his reply dated 11.05.2009 on the charge-sheet which was found not satisfactory and it was decided to

conduct a departmental enquiry into the charges, accordingly enquiry officer and presenting officer were

appointed by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry started from 15.09.2009 to 16.06.2010 in 4 dates. The

workman was supplied the documents which he had asked and which the enquiry officer had ordered the

management to produce. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report. The disciplinary authority, after

getting representation of the workman, imposed the punishment order and the appellate authority dismissed the

appeal as per law.

According to Management, the charges were rightly held proved and the punishment was also proportionate

to the charge proved.

On the basis of pleadings following preliminary issue was framed –

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper?

In evidence on this preliminary issue, the workman filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief, he was

crossed examined by management. Management filed affidavit of its witness as his examination-in-chief. He was

also cross examined by workman side.

The management filed original enquiry papers and proved.

After hearing the argument of learned Counsel Shri Anil P. Gajabiye and for workman and learned Senior

Counsel Shri Anoop Nayar, and having gone through the written argument as well the record in the light of rival

arguments, this issue was decided against the workman holding the departmental enquiry conducted legal and

proper. This order is part of this Judgment and Award.

Following other additional issues were framed vide order dated 13.03.2024:-

4. Whether the charges are proved from the evidence in enquiry.

5. Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charges.

6. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief.

Parties were directed to filed their evidence on these additional issues only.

The workman side filed affidavit in evidence on additional issues. Management did not file any additional

evidence.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Workman Mr. Anil B Gajabiye and Learned Senior Counsel

Mr. Anoop Nair, assisted by Mr. Neeraj Kewat for workman. Workman side has filed written arguments also.

I have gone through the written arguments and the record.

Additional issue No. 1 –

Charges against the Workman have been detailed earlier. The settled preposition of law with respect to prove

of charges in a Departmental Enquiry is that, the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as it is required

to be proved in a criminal trial.

Rather, the charges in the departmental enquiry are required to be the proved to the extent of reasonable

probability only. Following decisions are been referred and the relevant paragraphs are been reproduced in this

respect.

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

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

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

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

K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मइ 17, 2025/वैिाख 27, 1947

2031