3408 GI/2025

(3793)

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. 21]

नई ददल् ली, जून 1—जून 7, 2025, िजनवार/ज् येष् ठ 11—ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

No. 21]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 1—JUNE 7, 2025, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 11–JYAISTHA 17, 1947

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृष् ठ सं्‍ या दी जाती हज 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)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

अजधसूचना

नई ददल्ली, 3 जून, 2025

का.आ. 908.— केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्र्यक्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क डोड के अधीन केन्रीय माल और

सेवाकर (अृील) आयुक्तालय, देहरादून, काया लय जजसके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक कम चाररयों ने जहन्दी का काय साधक ज्ञान

प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]

प्रीजत सेलारे. उृ जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-24062025-264086

CG-DL-W-24062025-264086

3794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2025

S.O. 908.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the Central Goods & Service Tax (APPEALS),

Commissionerate DEHRADUN, office under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of revenue

where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]

PREETI SELLARE, Dy Director (OL)

नई ददल्ली, 4 जून, 2025

का.आ. 909.—केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्र्यक्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क डोड के अधीन केन्रीय वस्ट्तु एवं

सेवा कर, ृुणे II आयुक्तालय, काया लय जजसके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक कम चाररयों ने जहन्दी का काय साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर

जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]

प्रीजत सेलारे. उृ जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2025

S.O. 909.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the Central Goods & Service Tax, Pune-II

Commissionerate office under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of revenue where more than

80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]

PREETI SELLARE, Dy Director (OL)

नई ददल्ली, 4 जून, 2025

का.आ. 910.— केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्र्यक्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क डोड के अधीन आयुक्त सीमा िुल्क

(लेखा ृरीक्षा) मुंडई का काया लय, जजसके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक कम चाररयों ने जहन्दी का काय साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया

हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा.सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]

प्रीजत सेलारे. उृ जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

New Delhi, the 4rd June, 2025

S.O. 910.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS (AUDIT) MUMBAI under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of revenue where

more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]

PREETI SELLARE, Dy Director (OL)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3795

जवदेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी.)

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 911.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि ।

एतद् द्वारा,सरकार भारत के दूतावास, वाशिगटन डी सी मे^ेँ श्री मनीष गुप्ता, सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी,को

मई 29,2025 से सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनव हन करने के जलए अजधकृत करती हज।

[फा.सं. टी.4330/01/2025(25)]

एस.आर.एच. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 911.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Manish Gupta,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Washington DC to perform the

consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from May 29, 2025.

[F.No. T.4330/01/2025 (25)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV)

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 912.— राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि ।

एतद् द्वारा,सरकार भारत का प्रजतजनजध काया लय,अल्माटी मे श्री सजचन्र मोहन जमश्रा, सहायक अनुभाग

अजधकारी को ददनांक मई 29, 2025 से सहायक कोंसुलर अजधकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनव हन के जलए

प्राजधकृत करती हज।

[फा.सं. टी.4330/01/2025(26)]

एस.आर.एच. फहमी, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 912.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Mr. Sachindra Mohan

Mishra, Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Representative Office of India, Almaty to

perform the consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from May 29, 2025.

[F.No. T.4330/01/2025 (26)]

S.R.H FAHMI, Director (CPV)

3796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

स्ट्वास्ट््य और ृररवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(दंत जिक्षा अनुभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 15 मई, 2025

का.आ. 913.— दंत जचदक्सक अजधजनयम 1948 (1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की उृधारा (2) के द्वारा प्रदत्त

िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दंत ृररषद के ृरामि के डाद, एतद्द्वारा, उक्त अजधजनयम की

अनुसूची के भाग-I में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, अथा त् :-

श्री औरोशडदो कॉलेज ऑफ डेंरटस्ट्री, इंदौर (मध्य प्रदेि) के डीडीएस छात्रों के संडंध में श्री औरोशडदो

जवश्वजवद्यालय, इंदौर (मध्य प्रदेि) द्वारा प्रदान की गई दंत जडग्री की मान्यता से संडंजधत दंत जचदक्सक अजधजनयम, 1948

(1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग-I में क्रम सं्‍या 154 के सामने कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रजवजियों में जनम्नजलजखत

प्रजवजियां अंत:स्थाजृत की जाएंगी, नामत::

श्री औरोशडदो कॉलेज ऑफ डेंरटस्ट्री, इंदौर (मध्य प्रदेि)

डजचलर ऑफ डेंटल सज री

(06.12.2024 को या उसके डाद स्वीकृत 100 सीटों के साथ)

डीडीएस,

श्री औरोशडदो जवश्वजवद्यालय, इंदौर (मध्य प्रदेि)

[फा.सं. वी.12017/15/2025-डीई]

अजमत कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(DENTAL EDUCATION SECTION

New Delhi, the 15th May, 2025

S.O. 913.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act. 1948 (16

of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 154, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of Dental Degrees awarded by Sri Aurobindo University, Indore

(Madhya Pradesh) in respect of BDS students of Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, Indore (Madhya Pradesh)

the following entries shall be inserted, namely:

Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, Indore (Madhya Pradesh)

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

(With 100 seats if granted on or after 06.12.2024)

BDS,

Sri Aurobindo University, Indore (Madhya Pradesh)

[F.No. V.12017/15/2025-DE]

AMIT KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 28 मई, 2025

का.आ. 914.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj केनरा डैंक (जवलय के डाद शसजडकेट डैंक) ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2 fnYyh ds

iapkV (a129/2022, 130/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा.सं. ,y - 39025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-11]

सलोनी . उृ. जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3797

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 28th May, 2024

S.O. 914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.139/2022, 130/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No -II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank

( Syndicate Bank After Merger) and their workmen.

[F.No. L-39025/01/2025– IR(B-II)-11]

SALONI, Dy Director

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II, NEW

DELHI

I.D. NO. 129/2022

Sh. Aroon Kumar, S/o Sh. Kailash,

R/o- Village- Banpur Lalit Pur, District-Lalipur,

Uttar Pradesh-284402.

I.D. NO. 130/2022

Sh. Sushil Kumar, S/o Sh. Kailash Narayan,

R/o- Village- Banpur Lalit Pur, District-Lalipur,

Uttar Pradesh-284402.

VERSUS

1. The General Manager, Canara Bank,

(Syndicate Bank After Merger),

Head Office: 112, J.C. Road, PB No.-6684,

Bangalore, Karnataka- 560002.

2. Canara Bank,

Surajmal Vihar Branch, Atintic Plaza,

08 A LSC (DDA), Surajmal Vihar, New Delhi-110092.

3. World Wide Security Organisation,

B-06/66, Bearing NO. B-06/66, Situated,

At Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these two applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act

(herein after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the

common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for deciding these cases.

Claimants in their claim statements had stated that they were appointed by the management at the post of

Security Guard since 07.08.2018 and 10.05.2019 at the last drawn salary Rs. 14,698/- per month respectively. They

were working under the supervision and control of M-1 & 2. The M-1 & 2 is the Principle employer of M-3. They did

their duty without any default /complaint and obey their duty and orders of the management with full honesty and

sincerity. M-1 & 2 had not provided legal documents i.e. EPF Slip, Attendance register, Casual Slip, Wage register to

workman. They continuously demanded for legal benefits but the managements did not pay attention on the genuine

demand of workmen. Managements had started unnecessary harassment to workmen and that the managements had

not paid complete wages since 07.08.2018 to 15.09.2021. Thereafter, managements had orally illegally terminated the

services of the workmen on 15.09.2021 respectively without any domestic enquiry, without adopting industrial

dispute Act rules & procedure. When they had approached the management‘s office getting to job and their total legal

dues of Rs. 5,77,960/- and Rs. 4,04,116/- respectively, managements had not released their legal dues nor provided to

their job. Termination of the services of the workmen on dated 15.09.2021 is totally illegal, bad and unjust.

3798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management had violated the provision of Section 25 F and G of the ID Act, 1947. Hence, they filed the present

claims with the prayer that they be reinstated with full back wages.

M-1 & 2 had filed its WS, denying the averments made in their statements of claim. They submit that the

claimants were never employed by the M-1 & 2 therefore, the present claim petition is not maintainable and is liable

to be rejected.

M-3 had filed its WS, denying the averment made in their statements of claim. He stated that claimants are

not a workmen as defined U/s 2 (s) of the ID Act, 1947. As a part of their profile, claimants used to supervise other

employees, taking him out of ambit of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act and therefore, the present claim deserves to be

rejected. He submitted that claimants have suppressed the fact that on 01.02.2022, these claimants entered into a full

and final settlement with the Respondent-3, regarding their employment and received sum of Rs. 87,750/- and

1,05,750/- respectively through cheque. Claimants have not mentioned the fact of this full and final settlement in their

statement of claims, and have not come to this Hon‘ble Tribunal with clean hands. As a result, the claims of the

claimants deserve to be dismissed.

Now, these matters are listed for filing of rejoinder. However, for so many dates, workmen have not been

appearing inspite of providing a number of opportunities to substantiate their claims.

In these circumstances, when claimants are not interested in pursuing their claims, this tribunal has no

option except to pass the no dispute award. No Dispute Awards are passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent

to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to

record room. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 03.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 915.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa

-सह - Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (

28/2021) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा.सं.

22012/63/2021-

-एम-II]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL

and their workmen received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/63/2021– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 28 OF 2021

PARTIES: Nebu Kora

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3799

Vs.

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

25.04.2025

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 Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/63/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 10.12.2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

THE SCHEDULE

― Whether the action of the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. in non-

reinstatement in service of Sri Nebu Kora, Ex-U.G.Loader, U.M. No. 118957 is justified or not? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to? ‖

On receiving Order No. L-22012/63/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 10.12.2021 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 10.12.2021 /

01.07.2022 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.

The President of Koyala Mazdoor Congress on behalf of Nebu Kora and the management of Khas Kajora

Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) filed their respective

written statement on 06.01.2023. In gist, the fact of the union‘s case is that Nebu Kora was employed as Underground

Loader at Khas Kajora Colliery, with U.M. No. 118957. He was appointed on 17.07.1995 and was unable to perform

his job and fell ill as the underground working condition was hazardous. He was under medical treatment from

30.09.1995. After recovery from illness, he went to join his duty but the management of ECL issued a Charge Sheet

against him on 17.04.1996 for his absence from 04.10.1995. Nebu Kora submitted a reply against the Charge Sheet

disclosing that he was unable to work due to illness and was treated at the Colliery and thereafter under private

practitioner at Kajoragram. The workman submitted his treatment papers to the management along with the reply to

the Charge Sheet. Management initiated a domestic enquiry against the workman in which he participated. According

to the union the period of his absence from duty was six months and twelve days due to illness and the employee had

worked only for fifty-one (51) days before he became ill. It is asserted that there was no charge of habitual absence

against the workman and it was the first Charge Sheet issued against him for unauthorized absence and in a

disproportionate way highest punishment of dismissal was awarded. It is further contented that management did not

issue any second Show Cause Notice to the workman before his dismissal as such the punishment awarded is arbitrary

3800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and liable to be set aside. Union has prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal bearing No. KA:PM:C-

6:10:3347/8989 dated 22/23.12.1997. It is inter-alia contended that the management entered into a Memorandum of

Settlement before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol on 22.05.2007 in which management agreed

to consider all mercy petitions of the dismissed employees if their period of absence from duty was less than nine (9)

months and were up to forty-five (45) years of age at the time of dismissal. It is urged that the dismissed workman

who was well within the said age group and fulfilled the other condition should be reinstated in service. According to

the dismissed workman the Enquiry Officer did not give adequate opportunity to the workman to represent his case

and violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the co-worker to participate in the enquiry. It is further

prayed that Nebu Kora should be allowed to join his duty with payment of back wages and all other consequential

benefits.

Management contested the case against Nebu Kora by filing their written statement. Management claimed

that Nebu Kora worked only for 51 days and thereafter he remained absent from 04.10.1995 to 04.05.1996 for more

than seven months without any information or permission of the employer company. Charge Sheet was accordingly

issued against him bearing No. KKC/P&IR/C-6/19/96 dated 17.04.1996 under Clause 17(i)(n) of Model Standing

Orders applicable to the coal mining industry at that time. A domestic enquiry was held against the workman, who

participated along with his co-worker. The enquiry was held on 14.05.1996 following principles of natural justice and

full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. The charge levelled under Clause 17(i)(n) of Model

Standing Orders was proved against the workman. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the General

Manager of Kajora Area vide order no. KA:PM:C-6:10:3347/8989 dated 22/23.12.1997 dismissed the workman from

service. It is the case of the management that absenteeism is a serious offence and it hampers the work of the

employer as well as production process. Further case of the management is that the instant dispute against dismissal

was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Raniganj at Durgapur in the year 2018 i.e., more than

21 years from the date of dismissal of the workman who worked for only 51 days and it has been referred to this

Tribunal in the year 2021 i.e., after passage of 24 years. Therefore, the dispute has no merit for consideration.

Referring to Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with amendment Act of 2010 it is stated that the

workman was entitled to raise a dispute regarding his termination before the expiry of a period of 3 years from the

date of said termination. In the instant case the workman has raised the dispute after lapse of long twenty-one years,

hence he is not entitled to any relief. Referring to a decision of the Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Smt.

Swapna Adhhikari vs The State of West Bengal and Others [Writ Petition No. 22991(W) of 2013], management

urged that the High Court in the judgement dated 20.03.2014 observed that with the amendment of

Section 2A by the Industrial Dispute Amendment Act, 2010 (Act 24 of 2010), the Section 10(1) of the Act stands

abridged and laid down as follows :

― in respect of all cases as specified in Section 2A, the period stands abridged now even in a proceeding under

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by reason of

amendment to Section 2A and the said period of limitation would apply in proprio vigore.‖

Management contended that in view of the judgement the dispute did not exist for a period of twenty-one years and

the punishment awarded against the ex-workman is proportionate and in no way an arbitrary decision on the part of

the management. Management urged that the dismissed workman is not entitled to any relief.

Shri Nebu Kora has been examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed an affidavit-in-chief reiterating his

case stated in the written statement. The following documents have been admitted on behalf of the union :

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3801

(i)

Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 17.04.1996 has been produced as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Copy of the reply to the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

Copy of the application of Nebu Kora submitted before the Manager of Khas Kajora Colliery, to

allow him to join his duty, as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Copy of three medical prescriptions and one fitness certificate issued by Dr. R. R. Paul of Kajora

Bazar have been marked as Exhibit W-4, W-4/1, W-4/2 and W-4/3.

(v)

Copy of the Note Sheet dated 27.05.1996 proposing dismissal by the General Manager, as Exhibit

W-5.

(vi)

Copy of letter dated 12.11.1997 issued by the Personnel Manager, Kajora Area addressed to the

Agent, Khas Kajora Colliery asking him to finalize the case relating to absenteeism, as Exhibit W-6.

(vii)

Copy of the letter dated 17.11.1997 issued by the Agent, Khas Kajora Colliery in reply to Exhibit

W-6, as Exhibit W-7.

(viii)

Copy of the letter of dismissal dated 22/23.12.1997 issued by the General Manager, Kajora Area, as

Exhibit W-8.

In cross-examination the workman deposed that after his appointment he worked only for two months,

thereafter he remained absent from duty till issuance of Charge Sheet. His evidence reveals that he did not receive any

medical treatment from the Colliery Hospital nor did he inform the management about his illness or the reason of his

absence.

Management examined Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel), Khas Kajora Colliery as Management

Witness No. 1. Witness stated that the concerned workman remained absent from duty from 04.10.1995 to

04.05.1996, for a period of seven months without information and permission of the Competent Authority. Charge

Sheet was issued to the workman under Clause 17(i)(n) of Model Standing Orders. The workman submitted his reply

on 25.04.1996. The matter was thereafter referred for domestic enquiry, in which the workman participated

accompanied by co-worker. The enquiry was held on 14.05.1996 and charge was proved against Nebu Kora. The

General Manager, Kajora Area by his letter dated 22/23.12.1997 dismissed the workman from service. The following

documents have been produced by the management in support of their case :

(i)

Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 17.04.1996 has been produced as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Copy of the reply to the Charge Sheet, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding dated 14.05.1996, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Copy of the Enquiry Report along with findings of the Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Copy of the letter of termination dated 22/23.12.1997, as Exhibit M-5.

It is gathered from the cross-examination the witness that no second Show Cause Notice was issued to the

workman and the enquiry was completed on 14.05.1996. A Note Sheet was prepared by which the workman was

proposed to be dismissed. The workman submitted a mercy appeal but the same was not considered. Management

Witness denied that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct.

The matter in controversy in this case is whether the management of Khas Kajora Colliery is justified in not

reinstating Nebu Kora in service and to what relief the workman is entitled to? In order the consider the scheduled

3802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Dispute it is necessary to find out if the dismissal of Nebu Kora was justified. The relief of reinstatement is

contingent to the finding as to whether the dismissal of the concerned workman is legal and justified?

It transpires form the pleadings of the parties as well as affidavit-in-chiefs of Nebu Kora and Mr. Proloy

Dasgupta that the workman was appointed in the service of the company on 17.07.1995 as an Underground Loader.

After working for only fifty-one days the workman absented form duty from 04.10.1995 till issuance of the Charge

Sheet on 17.04.1996. The workman was found absent without authorization by the management for long seven

months. He did not have the primary responsibility to inform the management about the reason of his absence from

duty. the management was kept in the dark about absence of the workman. Admittedly, a Charge Sheet was issued

against the workman under Clause 17(i)(n) of the Model Standing Orders for unauthorized absence from duty for

more than ten days.

10.

The workman submitted a reply against the Charge Sheet which has been marked as W-2. In the reply, the

workman claimed that he was suffering from severe jaundice and was under the treatment of Dr. R. R. Paul of

Kajora Bazar. Medical papers produced by the workman have been marked as Exhibit W-4 series. A Certificate was

issued to Nebu Kora to the effect that he was under the treatment of Dr. R.R. Paul from 30.09.1995 to 04.05.1996 for

pyrexia with unknown origin followed by recurrent jaundice. The Enquiry Proceeding has been produced by the

management as Exhibit M-3. On a perusal of the Enquiry Proceeding, I find that Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhattacharyya was

examined as Management Representative and the charge employee was also examined. In his cross-examination the

charged employee admitted that he did not take permission nor inform the Competent Authority about his absence

from duty. The findings of the Enquiry Officer has been produced as Exhibit M-4. The Enquiry Officer found that the

charge against Nebu Kora was proved. Admittedly, no Second Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman and he

was dismissed from service by the General Manager, Kajora Area who issued the letter of dismissal bearing No.

KA:PM:C-6:10:3347/8989 dated 22/23.12.1997, which has been produced as Exhibit M-5. After dismissal the

workman did not file any mercy petition for his reinstatement. Instant Industrial Dispute has been raised on behalf of

the workman after lapse of twenty-one (21) years from the date of dismissal of the workman and on failure of

conciliation the Industrial Dispute has been referred to this Tribunal after twenty-four (24) years.

11.

Learned advocate for the management referred to a decision of the Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta in the

case of Smt. Swapna Adhhikari vs The State of West Bengal and Others [Writ Petition No. 22991(W) of 2013]

and argued that after amendment of the I.D. Act, 1947 in the year 2010, the time limit for raising an Industrial

Dispute is three (3) years from the date of termination from service and the Hon‘ble High Court held that with the

amendment of Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Amendment Act, 2010 (Act 24 of 2010) the Section 10(1) of the

Act also stands abridged and the period of limitation of three years should be counted. On going through the said

decision I find that the Hon‘ble High Court held that :

― However, in respect of all cases as specified in Section 2A, the period stands abridged now even in a proceeding

under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act by reason of amendment to Section 2A and the said period of

limitation would apply in proprio vigore.‖

12.

From the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon‘ble High Court, I find and

hold that the Industrial Dispute raised by the union on behalf of Nebu Kora after lapse of 21 years from the date of

dismissal is stale and cannot be entertained at this stage. I also find that the management of the company had issued a

Charge Sheet against the workman for proper reasons and the Enquiry Officer held the Enquiry Proceeding after

providing reasonable opportunity to the charged employee, following the principles of natural justice. A workman is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3803

not found justified in enjoying leave at his own volition without informing the management. It is unreasonable on the

part of the workman to remain absent for long seven months without finding time to inform the employer company

about his absence until issuance of the Charge Sheet. The Medical Certificate produced for the period from

30.09.1995 to 04.05.1996 (Exhibit W-4) states that Nebu Kora was treated for ―Pyrexia‖ that is ‗fever‘ and jaundice.

The certificate is neither supported by treatment papers nor does it specify the period and the nature of illness suffered

during such time span. Therefore, such claim of illness is not acceptable. The punishment imposed for long

unauthorized absence is also found just and appropriate. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the

workman is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement and the question of payment of back wages and consequential

benefits does not arise.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. The workman, Nebu Kora is not entitled to any relief

of reinstatement. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be

sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 916.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn

esa

- सह -

आसनसोल ds iapkV (

18/2022) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा.सं.

22012/45/2022-

-एम-II]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 916.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL

and their workmen received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/45/2022– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 18 OF 2022

PARTIES: Lal Bahadur Saw

Vs.

Management of Satgram Incline of ECL

3804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

None.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

28.02.2025

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 Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/45/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 12.05.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

THE SCHEDULE

― Whether the action of the Management of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in relation to its Satgram Incline under

Satgram Area to recover the amount of Rs. 2,77,491.50 vide order No. ECL/VIG/2020/1179 dated 19/6/2020 and

subsequent letter No. GM/SAT/71/2020/237 dated 23/6/2020 in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs. 5781/- w.e.f

August, 2020 which was paid to Shri Lal Bahadur Saw, Electrician, U.M. No. 304296, Satgram Incline as House Rent

Allowance between August, 2014 to April, 2020 whereas the said management did not make any repairing job till now

in NTD Quarters bearing no. NTD-41/36 at New Satgram Colliery where Shri Lal Bahadur Saw residing is legal, fair

& justified. If not, what relief Shri Lal Bahadur Saw is entitled to and what directions are necessary in this regard? ‖

On receiving Order No. L-22012/45/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 12.05.2022 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 18.05.2022 /

01.07.2022 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.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for Eastern Coalfields Limited. For ends of justice the case was

fixed up on 21.01.2025 for taking step by the union and evidence of workman witness. General Secretary, Colliery

Mazdoor Sabha (AITUC), Asansol was absent without step. On repeated calls at 12.50 PM none appeared on behalf

of the union. It appears from the record that ample opportunity has been granted to the workman to represent his case

properly. Since no evidence is adduced in support of the claim, the Industrial Dispute stands dismissed for default of

the workman. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour

and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3805

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 917.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj

इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

- सह -

आसनसोल ds iapkV (

21/2023) dks izdkf”kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[फा.सं.

22012/32/2023-

-एम-II]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 917.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL

and their workmen received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/32/2023– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 21 OF 2023

PARTIES: Md. Habib Mia

Vs.

Management of Khas Kajora Colliery, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Jamaluddin Mia, General Secretary, RMBKS.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

18.02.2023

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 Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/32/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 31.03.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery under Kajora Area of Mines of Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

3806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

THE SCHEDULE

― Whether the action of management of Khas Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. in not changing

the designation of workman Shri. Md. Habib Mia (U.M. No. 553349) from Boiler Fireman to Fan Operator is legal

and justified. If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? ‖

On receiving Order No. L-22012/32/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 31.03.2023 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 23 of 2023 was registered

on 06.04.2023 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.

The case is fixed up today for evidence of Management Witness. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern

Coalfields Limited along with Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Management Representative are present. Habib Mia the

aggrieved workman is accompanied by Mr. Jamaluddin Mia, union representative. The Industrial Dispute has been

raised, claiming regularization of the workman in the post of Fan Operator. It is submitted by the workman that he has

already been regularized in the post and now has no grievance.

Parties filed a joint petition, signed by the workman, union representative and Mr. Proloy Dasgupta and

prayed for disposal of the Industrial Dispute as there is no grievance. Perused the petition. Considered. I find that the

dispute has been resolved during pendency of the Reference case, therefore the Reference case is dismissed on

consent. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. A No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference

case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India,

New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 918.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल, के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजको और उनके कम कारों के डीच, अनुडंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद

में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण - सह श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर केृंचाट (एलसी/आर/42/ 2019) को प्रकाजित

करती हज, जो केन्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा.सं.

22012/18/2019-

-एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 918.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/42/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/18/2019– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3807

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Bhrigu Nath Ram,

Secretary,

Bhartiya Vikas Theka Mazdoor Union,

Add. – Shivraj Hotel, House No. 301 Near Material Gate,

NTPC Seepat,

Distt. Bilaspur (CG) - 174001

Workman

The Sub Area Manager,

SECL, Bagdewa UG Mines,

Korba Area, PO- Katghora,

Distt. – Korba (CG) - 495445

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 11^thday of April- 2025)

As per letter dated 13/03/2019 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-

22012/18/2019 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 13/03/2019. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the action taken by the management of Bagdewa Colliery of SECL, Korba Area in inflicting

harsher punishment of removal from service in respect of Shri Hori Lal, Ex-Driller of Bagdewa UG Mines on

absenteeism ground w.e.f. 28-05-2010 without taking into consideration the more number of years of service left in

respect of the above named dismissed employee in the decision making processes espoused by the Secretary,

Bhartiya Vikas Theka Mazdoor Union is appropriate and justified?‖

―Whether the claim for re-instatement in service in respect of Shri Hori Lal, Ex-Driller of Bagdewa UG

Mines espoused by the Secretary, Bhartiya Vikas Theka Mazdoor Union is appropriate and justified? If not, what

relief Shri Hori Lal the dismissed employee is entitled to?‖

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

respective statement of defense and claim.

According to the Workman, he worked on duty on 04.10.2019 and went home, where he felt ill. He

consulted doctor at nearby Health Centre, Kashundra, were he was admitted and was under treatment till 06.02.2010.

He had informed about his illness to Management on 08.01.2010. A Departmental Enquiry was instituted against him

by Management referred against him, charge of misconduct by way of wilfully absenting himself without intimation

to Management and without getting leave sanctioned as well of absence without information. Showing presence of

only 109 days in 2007, 46 days in 2008 and 32 days in 2009, a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against him,

which was not legally conducted according to him. The charges were wrongly held proved and the punishment

awarded was disproportionate to the charge.

Management took a case that, the Workman was in the habit of absenting himself from workplace without

intimation to Management or without getting leave sanctioned. His attendance was very poor, only 109 days in 2007,

46 days in 2008 and 32 days in 2009 he was issued a charge-sheet and an enquiry was conducted as per law and rules.

The Enquiry Officer held the charges proved and a punishment was awarded which is proportionate to the charges.

Following preliminary issue was framed on the basis of pleadings.

Whether the Enquiry conducted against the workman is just fair, proper and legal?

This issue was decided against the Workman holding the Enquiry legal and proper. This order is part of this judgment.

3808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Following additional issues were framed thereafter :

Whether charges are proved?

Whether punishment is proportionate?

Parties were directed to lead evidences on additional issues. No evidence was adduced by any of the parties.

The Workman did not appear at the stage of argument, I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for

Management Mr. Neeraj Kewat and have gone through record.

Additional Issue No. 1

According to the Enquiry proceedings and proceeding performed by Management, charge against the

Workman was misconduct under Clause 26.24 and 26.30 which is habitual absence without reason and unauthorized

absence from Workplace without getting any leave sanctioned or information to Management. The Case of the

Workman is that he was sick since 05.02.2009 for which he has filed some photocopy document during the enquiry

but, there is no justification of his absence for 2007 and 2008 hence, the charges are held to have been rightly proved.

The additional issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Additional Issue No. 2 –

Habitual absence is major misconduct for which punishment of dismissal is permitted in the rules, keeping in

view the period of absence in the 3 years as mentioned in the charge, a punishment of dismissal from service cannot

be held to be disproportionate to the charge proved.

Hence, holding the punishment proportionate to the charge, Additional Issue No.2 is answered

accordingly.

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

Holding the action of the Management of Bagdewa Colliery of SECL, Korba Area in awarding punishment

of removal from service to Workman Hori Lal w.e.f. 28.05.2010, legal and proper. The Workman is held to no relief.

DATE:- 11/04/2025

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 919.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल.के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजको और उनके कम कारों के डीच, अनुडंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद में

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण सह श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर केृंचाट (एलसी/आर/23/2012) को प्रकाजित करती

हज, जो केन्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा.सं.

22012/173/2011-

-एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 919.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/23/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/173/2011– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3809

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/2012

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Arshad Hussain

S/o. Mohd. Siddique

Ex- Mazdoor, Rehar Gayatri Project

SECL, Bishrampur Area, PO- Ketki

Via Surajpur, District – Surguja (C.G.)

Workman

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager

Bishrampur Area of SECL,

PO-Bishrampur, Distt.-Surguja (C.G.)

2. The Sub-Area Manager

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Rehar Gayatri Project

SECL, Bishrampur Area, PO- Ketki

Via Surajpur, District – Sarguja (C.G.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 4^th day of February-2025)

As per letter dated 04/01/2012 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 as per Notification

No. L-22012/173/2011/IR(CM-II) dt. 04/01/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the action of the management of Sub-Area Manager, Rehar Gayatri Jai Nagar Sub Area,

SECL, Bishrampur Area, PO- Ketki, Via Surajpur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in removal of Shri Arshad

Hussain S/o. Mohd. Siddique, Ex- Casual Mazdoor, from service w.e.f. 16.02.2010 was legal and justified

? To what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?‖

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

appeared and file their respective Statement of Claims and Defense.

According to the workman, he was first appointed as a labour by management in 1984 and worked till 2010

continuously. He was issued a charge-sheet on 20.04.2009 with an allegation of misconduct committed by him by

way of absenting himself without sufficient reason, without informing management and without getting leave

sanctioned for the period of 72 days in 2006, 71 days in 2007 and 54 days in 2008. He replied the charges with a case

that he was under treatment for this period. As alleged by the Workman in his statement of claim, the departmental

enquiry was conducted against statutory provisions of law and justice in which he was not afforded proper

opportunity to defend his case and two produces defence, nor was he afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the

prosecution witnesses during the enquiry. He was wrongly held guilty for misconduct by the enquiry officer who

submitted his enquiry report, holding him guilty for misconduct. The charges were wrongly held proved by Inquiry

Officer and the punishment awarded is also disproportionate to the charges. The workman has requested that setting

3810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

aside the dismissal order, he be held entitled to reinstatement and be deemed in continuous service also be held

entitled to all in service benefits.

Denying the allegations put by the Workman with respect to the departmental enquiry, the management has

come up with the case that the Workman was initially appointed in the year 1984 on the post of general mazdoor. He

could not complete 190/240 days attendance in any year from the date of first appointment. Hence, could not attain

the status of a permanent employee and remained a casual labour. Management has given a list of his attendance from

1996 to 2008 in which the maximum days of his attendance was 120 days in 1998 and the minimum is 46 days in

2003. He was issued several warnings and charge-sheets for his unauthorized absence for the years and was awarded

different punishments, detailed in the written statement of defense. He was issued charge-sheet for his poor

attendance/ habitual unauthorized absence from work. He took a defense that he could not report due to sickness. The

management did not consider his reply to the charge-sheet satisfactory and decided to conduct inquiry. The workman

also participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and a show-cause notices was issued by the

Disciplinary Authority with a copy of the inquiry report. The workman submitted his reply and thereafter, the

punishment of his removal from service was passed, which is not disproportionate to the charge.

Following preliminary issue was framed on the basis of pleadings:-

1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper or not?

In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit as witness in which he correlated his allegations with regards to

the departmental enquiry as elaborated earlier. He was cross-examined by management. He filed and proved inquiry

documents.

Management examined its witness who was the enquiry officer during the enquiry. He deposed about the

enquiry and proved the enquiry papers, including charge sheet issued to the workman, his reply, order of

management, instituting enquiry and appointment of enquiry officer as well presenting officer, enquiry papers and

proceedings, enquiry report, show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority on enquiry report, representation

of the applicant on enquiry report and punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority.

Preliminary issue was decided vide order dated 23.09.2022 holding the departmental inquiry conducted legal

and proper. This order is part of this Award.

Following additional issues are framed on the basis of pleadings-

2. Whether the charges are proved from the inquiry?

3. Whether the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charge?

4. Whether the applicant is entitled to any relief?

Parties were directed to file their evidence on remaining issues in form of documents/affidavit. They did not

file any evidence.

I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Rakesh Soni for workman and learned Counsel Mr. Neeraj

Kewat for management. I have gone through the record.

Issue No.-2 :-

Learned Counsel for management has referred to the enquiry papers, in support of his argument that the

charge was rightly held proved by the Enquiry Officer.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3811

Learned Counsel has submitted that the standard of proof required for charge to be proved in a departmental

enquiry is not the same as it is in a criminal trial.

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)

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

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

3812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

and trial of criminal case. "

I have gone through the inquiry papers. On perusal of inquiry papers and evidence during inquiry I am of the

considered view that the finding of Inquiry Officer regarding proof of charges is based on evidence and by no

yardstick, can be held perverse.

Accordingly, upholding the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the charges against the workman are held proved,

issue no.-2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-3 :-

Learned Counsel for management has submitted that integrity and devotion to duty are the core values that

have to be maintained by an employee while in service. No employer can afford to have an employee on its rolls who

has no integrity or as no devotion for duty left in him.

The settled proposition of law is that the punishment can be interfered by this Tribunal only when it is so

disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of this Tribunal. Following judgments are being referred

to in this respect.

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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3813

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 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.

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.

This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 :

(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587

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

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

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

departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly

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

at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the

findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated

or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.

(Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44]

, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of India v. Degala

Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at

Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)

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

3814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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:

―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.‖

Charges proved are that the workman impersonated and got employment. He furnished wrong information

with regard to his identity in getting employment, this is misconduct under Clause-26.24 & 26.30 of Certified

Standing Orders, which provide major punishment. This is an act of moral turpitude. Keeping in view the nature and

seriousness of the charge proved, the punishment of his dismissal from service cannot be held disproportionate to the

charge. Hence, holding the punishment not disproportionate to the charge, issue no.-3 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.-4 :

On the basis of findings recorded above, the workman is held entitled to no relief.

Accordingly, the Reference is answered as follows :-

AWARD

Holding the action of management of Sub-Area Manager, Rehar Gayatri Project SECL, Bishrampur

Area, PO- Ketki, Via Surajpur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in removal of Shri Arshad Hussain S/o. Mohd.

Siddique, Ex- Casual Mazdoor, from service w.e.f. 16.02.2010 legal and justified, the workman is held entitled

to no relief.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 04/02/2025 P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 920.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एन.सी.एल..के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजको और उनके कम कारों के डीच, अनुडंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद में

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण सह - श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर के ृंचाट (एलसी/आर/96/2018) को प्रकाजित करती

हज, जो केन्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा.सं.

22012/139/2018-

-एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 920.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/96/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of N.C.L,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/139/2018– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3815

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/96/2018

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

The Central Secretary

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS)

Nigahi Project of NCL

PO – Nigahi, Distt.- Singrauli-486889

Workman

Versus

The General Manager

Nigahi Project of NCL

PO- Nigahi, Distt.- Singrauli - 486889

Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 27th day of March-2025.)

As per letter dated 26.11.2018 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, 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-22012/139/2018-IR(CM-II) dt. 26.11.2018. The dispute under reference related to :-

―Whether the action of the management of paying less salary to Shri B.B. Singh Foreman, E&M Grade-B

in comparison to Shri C.S. Ojha (who is junior to Shri B.B. Singh) is justified ? If not, whether Shri B.B.

Singh is entitled to get pay protection ? If yes, what relief Shri B.B. Singh is entitled for ?‖

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

on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

The undisputed facts are that, B.B. Singh was appointed as CMT, Category-I, on 05.01.1985, whereas his

colleague C.S. Ojha was appointed on the same post on 03.07.1985. B.B. Singh was promoted to CMT, Category-II

on 13.03.1986, whereas C.S. Ojha was promoted to Category-II on 03.07.1986. B.B. Singh was further promoted to

Category-IV on 17.01.1987, whereas C.S. Ojha was promoted on 03.07.1987. B.B. Singh thereafter promoted to

Category-V on 24.02.1990, whereas C.S. Ojha was promoted on 07.07.1990. B.B. Singh became eligible for

promotion to Category-VI and produced his Supervisor License required for promotion to Category-VI in November

1994 but was placed on Category-VI post instead of promotion in Category-VI. The Departmental Promotion

Committee arbitrarily ignore his claim for promotion to Category-VI and promoted C.S. Ojha to Category-VI, thus

C.S. Ojha was placed in a higher pay scale on this promotion in Category-VI but B.B. Singh was not granted higher

pay scale admissible to Category-VI on the ground that he was only placed in Category-VI. Thus, according to the

workman, the action of management in placing B.B. Singh to Category-VI without granting higher pay scale

admissible to Category-VI and promoting his junior C.S. Ojha to Category-VI as well granting Shri C.S. Ojha higher

pay scale admissible to Category-VI is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The management has defended its action on the

ground that on the ground that vide Circular No. 15/69 circulated vide letter no. 4444 dated 19.11.1989 in case of

3816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

upgradation, the upgraded employee will not get fixation benefit with increment as in case of normal promotion but

will be fixed in the nearest stage in the higher category. The management decided the grievance of the workman vide

its order dated 27.01.1999 with regard to pay anomaly as follows :-

―The basic pay of B.B. Singh Category-VI of Nigahi Project is stepped up to Rs. 81.14/- per day w.e.f.

01.08.1991 at par with basic pay of Shri C.S Ojha, Electrician Category-VI of Nigahi Project. The date of

annual increment of Shri B.B. Singh will also be routed at par with his junior Shri Ojha i.e. 01.08.1991 and

onward. Due to placement of Shri B.B. Singh as Electrician Category-VI on 13.10.1995 after completion of

his cadre scheme, the difference of basic caused to him not be treated anomaly. Hence, question of anomaly

on 13.10.1995 in respect of Shri B.B. Singh, Electrician Category-VI does not arise.‖

Further according to management, this order was not challenged by the workman B.B. Singh, hence it has

become final.

In evidence, both the parties have filed their side affidavits as their examination in chief and have been cross

examined by their opposite party. Management has filed original documents/orders relevant to the dispute in the

reference, which have been marked as Exb. M/1 to M/5 and will be referred to as and when required.

I have heard argument of learned Counsel for workman Shri Arun Patel and learned Counsel Shri Neeraj

Kewat for the management. I have gone through the record as well.

As it is established from pleadings and evidence that B.B. Singh was senior to C.S. Ojha in till Category-V,

when he became eligible for promotion to Category-VI, he was placed in Category-VI resulting into none payment of

scale admissible to Category-VI, whereas his junior C.S. Ojha was promoted to Category-VI resulting into higher pay

scale admissible to Category-VI. The question arises here is whether the management committed any illegality by

doing so ?

As stated above, the defense of management is that an order was passed by them in 1999 refusing the

representation and claim of the B.B. Singh which was not agitated against by him. Hence, he cannot be permitted to

raised at his stage after such a long delay.

There is no evidence on record produced by management to indicate that on what grounds case of B.B. Singh

was not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee at the time of promotion to Category-VI

and what led the Committee to promote C.S. Ojha, a junior employee to Category-VI instead of a senior eligible

employee B.B. Singh. In absence of any material to justify this action, the management will undoubtedly be held to

have committed illegality in ignoring claim of B.B. Singh for promotion to Category-VI. Since, there is no limitation

provided to agitate against such an order and the action as well order of management is inherently illegal, unjustified

and arbitrary, the otherwise justified claim of B.B. Singh cannot be refused on technical grounds of delay and latches.

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

AWARD

Holding the action of the management of paying less salary to B.B. Singh, Foreman, E&M, Grade-B in

comparison to Shri C.S. Ojha (who is junior to Shri B.B. Singh) unjustified, illegal and arbitrary, he is entitled

to get pay protection from the date of his placement in Category-VI, amount to be payable after computation

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3817

along with litigation cost computed at Rs. 30,000/- within 30 days from the date of publication of Award, failing

which interest @ of 6% p.a. from date of Award, till payment.

DATE: 27/03/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDING OFFICER

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 921.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण - सह श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर के ृंचाट (एलसी/आर/61/2020) को प्रकाजित

करती हज, जो केन्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा.सं.

22012/17/2020-

-एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 921.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/61/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/17/2020– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/61/2020

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

General Secretary

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor

Sangathan (BMS), Qtr. No. M/119 & M/120,

Urja Nagar of SECL Gevra Project

Distt.- Korba (C.G.)-495677

Workman

Versus

General Manager

SECL, Dipka Area, PO: Dipka

Distt.- Korba, Chhattisgarh- 495677

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21^st day of April-2025.)

As per letter dated 18/09/2020 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

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

22012/17/2020 IR(CM-II)) dt. 18/09/2020. The dispute under reference related to :-

3818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether the demand of the union (Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangathan (BMS) Bilaspur) for

promotion of the workman Shri Harish Prasad S/o. Jethuram, Elect Cat-V of Dipka Area, SECL against

advertisement/Order No. SECL/BSP/ADMN/ SELECTION/ASSTT. FOREMAN/10/1420, dated 10.11.2010 to

the post of Asstt. Foreman in the light of settlement dated 21.05.2008 in Form-H is justified and legal ? If yes, to

what relief Shri Harish Prasad S/o. Jethuram is entitled ?

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

them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.

The workman has claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman, Elect. and placement of his name at

proper place in seniority list on the ground that he was promoted to the post of Electrician Cadre, Category-IV on

15.05.2004 and from 28.05.2008, he was employed in SECL Raigarh Area. From 19.06.2017 he was transferred to

SECL Dipka Area, as Electrician Category-V. The management has defended its action with a case that as per the

cadre scheme a person is required to have spent three years of service as Electrician category-V and VI whereas the

workman was dismissed from his services for charge of misconduct committed by him while he was working as

Electrician, Category-V. He was reemployed as Electrician, Category-IV by way of mercy on his representation to the

management. Hence, he was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman.

The workman has not filed any evidence. Management has filed affidavit of its witness which is

uncontroverted.

None was present for workman at the time of argument. I have heard argument of Mr. Neeraj Kewat for

management and have gone through the record.

The burden to prove his case on the workman in which he has failed. There is on record, photocopy of a

settlement between management and workman union in which it has been agreed upon by the parties that the

workman will be re-appointed as Electrician, Category-IV. Being in Electrician Category-IV he is not entitled to be

considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman because he does not fulfill the required qualification.

On the basis of above discussion, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman and is

answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE: 21/04/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 922.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार डब्लल्यू.सी.एल, के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजको और उनके कम कारों के डीच, अनुडंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद

में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण - सह श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर के ृंचाट (एलसी/आर/52/2016) को प्रकाजित

करती हज, जो केन्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा.सं.

22012/27/2016-

-एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3819

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 922.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/52/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of W.C.L,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/27/2016– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Namdeo Madankar,

Gali No. 3, Opp. Dr. Dabke Clinic,

Badwan Area, PO: Chhindwara,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Chhindwara - 480001

Workman

The General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Shobhapur Mine, PO : Pathakhera Area,

Distt. Betul (MP)

Betul - 460449

Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 11th day of April- 2025)

As per letter dated 06/06/2016 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-22012/27/2016 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 06/06/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Shobhapur

Mine, Pathakhera Area in not correcting the date of birth of Shri Namdeo Madankar as 02.12.58 as per DOB

Certificate issued by Date of Birth Registrar Office, Chhindwara and superannuating him w.e.f. 31.12.2014 is

justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for?‖

Case of the Workman is that he is an illiterate person. He was first appointed by Management on

26.06.1981, he had told his age about 23 years at the time of joining. He came to know that he was going to retire

on 31.12.2024 after completing 60 years of age. He filed an application before the Management that in fact his

date of birth was is 02.02.1989. He attached his Birth Registration Certificate, but Management did not consider

it and superannuated him treating his date of birth as 01.01.1955 which was wrongly recorded in their registers.

According to the Workman, this action of Management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Case of the Management is

that, the Workman disclosed his date of birth 01.01.1955 which was wrongly recorded in their registers.

According to the Workman, this action of the Management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Case of Management is

that, the Workman disclosed his date of birth 01.01.1955 and was recorded as such in Form B Register. He put

his signature on the Form B Register. His same date of birth was recorded in his Service Register Form PS-3 and

PS-4, which were signed by him. He never objected to his date of birth recorded by Management, he has taken

objection, only on the fag end of his service, in 2014 which is not permissible in Law.

3820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In evidence, the Workman did not file his affidavit. Management filed a copy of Form B Register, Service

side. Management filed affidavit of its witness as his examination-in-chief, which is uncross-examined.

None appeared for from the side of Workman at argument stage. Hence, I have heard argument of Learned

Counsel for Management Mr. Neeraj Kewat and have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.

The burden to prove his date of birth and the fact that, his date of birth has been wrongly recorded is on

the Workman. By not filing any evidence, he is held to have failed in discharging this burden. Furthermore,

Learned Counsel for Management has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble High Court in the Case of Bharat

Coking Coal Limited V.s. Shyam Kishore Singh Reported in (2020) Vol. 3, SCC 411. In this case it has been

laid down that claim of change of date of Birth in service record raised by the Workman at the fag end of his

service is not permissible. This case is fully applicable in the case in hand.

Hence, holding the action of Management in superannuating Workman on the basis of date of birth

recorded in the service records maintained by Management is just, legal and proper. The Workman is held

entitled to no relief.

Reference stands answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 11/04/2025 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 923.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण - सह श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर के ृंचाट (एलसी/आर/150/2017) को प्रकाजित

करती हज, जो केन्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा.सं.

22012/94/2017-

-एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 923.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/150/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22012/94/2017– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/150/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The General Secretary,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3821

Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation

H.O. Federation Office – Chirmiri

Po- Chirmiri, Distt. Korea (CG),

Pin - 497449

Workman

The General Manager,

SECL, Bhatgaon Area Po- Bhatgaon

Distt. – Surajpur (CG)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 12^thday of March - 2025)

As per letter dated 16.11.2017 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-22012/94/2017-(IR(CM-II)) dt. 16.11.2017. The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action on the part of the management of the SECL, Bhatgaon, area in dismissing

Shri J.N. Singh, Ex-clerk from service without conducting proper departmental enquire with element of

bais by the enquiry office in the decision making process is appropriate and justified? If not, what relief

the dismissed workman as espoused by the General Secretary of Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation,

Chirmiri is entitled to?

According to the workman during his posting as Clerk in Jarhi Hospital, he was issued a show

cause notice on 30-4-2007 by the Staff Officer (Mining) of General Manager Office, Bhatgaon Area with

relation to charge against him that he obtained Rs.1,24,000/- (one lakh twenty four thousand) from one

Smt. Bhukli Bai W/o late Shri Rameshwar an Ex-employee of Management for getting her employed with

the management on certain post which was misconduct as mentioned in Section 26.2 and 26.22 of Certified

Standing Orders. He submitted a reply to the notice denying the charges. The management decided to

conduct a departmental inquiry against him. The Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were

appointed. The inquiry concluded in three sitting. On the first date, i.e. 21-9-2007, the workman was

absent. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of management witness in absence of the workman.

The inquiry Officer was so biased that he himself asked all the questions from the management witnesses

which is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. ON the next date 6-11-2007, the three Management

witnesses who were earlier examined on the first date of the inquiry in absence of the workman, were

examined by the workman. Thus according to the workman, the inquiry was not in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and was in violation of settled rules and procedures of Inquiry.

However, that the charges were wrongly held proved and punishment was disproportionate to the

charges proved. Workman has thus prayed that, holding the order of dismissal of his services by the

Management, unjust and illegal. He be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefits.

The case of the management on this point is that the charge sheet was served on the workman.

He was given written intimation of dates of inquiry details mentioned in para-7 of the written statement of

defence. The case of the workman is that in fact the inquiry concluded in six dates. ON the first two dates

i.e. 11-7-2007 and 23-7-2007, the workman was not present on the third date i.e. 10-8-2007, the management

3822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

representative was not present. Then the date 21-9-2007 which the workman claims to be the first date was

fixed. The workman was not present. Three witnesses were present with the Management representative,

hence the statements of the witnesses were recorded and date 6-11-2007 was fixed for examination of this

witness. According to the Management, the workman did cross-examine this witness, hence there was no

prejudice caused to the workman during the inquiry. Accordingly the Management has prayed that the

preliminary issue be answered against the workman.

Management has further pleaded that charges were held rightly proved the Enquiry Officer and

punishment was also proportionate to the charges.

On the basis of pleadings, following preliminary issue was framed vide order dated 12.01.2021.

Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper in fact and law?

The workman J.N. Singh has examined himself on oath on preliminary Issue, wherein he has

stated that he was not given opportunity of cross-examination of Management witness. Thereafter, he

stated that he did cross-examine the three witnesses during the inquiry but their complete statement was

not recorded. He further stated that he had produced documentary evidence in his defence, during the

inquiry. He also examined himself as a witness during the inquiry.

The management has examined Lalit Prakash Tirki, Chief Manager. According to this

Management Witness, he was Management representative during the inquiry proceedings. He has proved

the inquiry papers. He admits that on the date 21-9-2007, the statements of Management witness were

recorded in absentia of the workman. He further states that the workman had full knowledge of the dates

of inquiry but he absented himself. These witnesses were cross-examined by the workman on the next

date. He pleads ignorance regarding any application filed by the workman to change the Inquiry Officer.

Preliminary issue was decided by order dated 05.09.2022 holding the Departmental Enquiry legal

and proper this order is part of this Award.

Following additional issues were framed thereafter –

"1.Whether the charges are proved on the basis of inquiry report?."

"2.Whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charge proved.?"

"3.Relief to which the workman is entitled.?"

Parties were granted opportunity to lead evidence on remaining additional issues.

During the proceedings, the Workman died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel, for Workman and Mr. Neeraj Kevat for

Management.

I have gone through the record as well.

Additional Issue No. 1:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3823

From perusal of the Enquiry Proceedings and enquiry report it comes out that the Enquiry Officer

has the workman guilty of misconduct alleged. The basis of this finding according to the Enquiry Officer is

that, the statement of the complainant Bhukli Bai wherein she said she paid 8 bundles and Rs. 100 currency

notes amounting Rs. 80,000/- before one witness to the Workman and the witness has also supported this

statement.

According to the enquiry officer the Workman has admitted that the husband of the complainant

was an employee of the Mines, he was known to the Workman and that is why he was helping his widow

in getting Compassionate Appointment.

Learned Counsel for Workman has submitted that case of the Workman during the Enquiry was

that there was an application for compassionate appointment of dependant of deceased Worker which was

under process. The Workman did not have authority to take final decision it was getting delayed hence,

the complainant developed a grudge against the Workman under the mistaken belief that it was the

workman who was delaying the processing. According to Learned Counsel, it is further the case of the

Workman that the same complainant has filed an application before Police with same allegations. This

complainant was enquired into by Police and they filed the report that there was no truth in the

allegations. According to Learned Counsel, the Workman did file the documents with respect to this

enquiry by Police and findings of Police Officer after enquiry but it was not considered by the Enquiry

Officer while recording the finding hence, the findings are one sided and perverse.

Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that the correctness of the finding is to be

looked into on the basis of evidence which is in form of statement of the complainant and heard witness

who have supported the allegation. From the enquiry report, it is clear that, the Workman did file

documents with regard to enquiry by Police, and the same complainant made to the Police by the

complainant which was found without substance. The documents and report of the finding of the Police

Officer was available during the enquiry for consideration by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer

recorded his findings ignoring these documents. When there was material before the Enquiry Officer that

the same complainant with same allegations was enquired by Police Officer and there was no substance

found though the witness were also the same. It was incumbent on the Enquiry Officer to consider these

documents and reach to a conclusion thereafter. He was at liberty to agree or disagree with the Police

Report and Police Enquiry documents which he did not do. Hence the finding of the Enquiry Officer

holding the charges proved only on the basis of statement of complainant and her witness ignoring their

statements before the Police during the enquiry were they did not support the allegations and is nothing

short of perversity. Hence, holding the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges were proved, is

perverse the additional issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Additional Issue No. 2 –

During the proceedings the Workman has died and is now being represented by his legal

representatives. Hence, to order a fresh enquiry will not be legal in such circumstances. In the light of

findings recorded above, the punishment awarded is held to be against law and liable to be set-aside.

The legal representatives of the deceased Workman are held entitled to the arrears of wages and

other service benefits admissible to the deceased Workman J.N. Singh from the date of his termination till

date of his superannuation, treating him to be in continuous service, by Management.

3824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

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

AWARD

Holding the action on the part of the Managemet of SECL, Bhatgaon area in dismissing Shri.

J.N. Singh, Ex-clerk from service against law, the legal representatives of the deceased Workman are

held entitled to the arrears of wages and other service benefits admissible to the deceased Workman

J.N. Singh from the date of his termination till date of his superannuation, treating him to be in

continuous service, by Management.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 12/03/2025 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 29 मई, 2025

का.आ. 924.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण - सह - श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर केृंचाट (एलसी/आर/14/2014) को प्रकाजित

करती हज, जो केन्रीय सरकार को 18/05/2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[फा.सं.

22013/01/2025-

-एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन. उृ. जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 29th May, 2025

S.O. 924.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/14/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.E.C.L,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/05/2025

[F.No. L-22013/01/2025– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/14/ 2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Narmada Prasad @

Ramgopal S/o. Shamsundar

Alias Devideen Vill. Sirouja,

PO Rajendra Nagar Distt. Shahdol.

Workman

The Sub Area Manager,

Amlai Bangwar and Damini Sub

Area of SECL PO Bemhouri,

Distt. Shahdol.

Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3825

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 24^thday of April - 2025)

The workman has filed this petition under Section 2A (10) (2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

hereinafter referred by the word ‗Act‘, with a case that, he was appointed with the Management in the year 1978, and

has served with them continuously for 32 years. His name Narmada Prasad alias Ramgopal S/o Devideen was

registered in the records of the Management, with his permanent address Village Sirouja Tehsil Suhagpur, Distt.

Shahdol. A false complaint was made by one Uday Pratap Singh, who was inimical to the petitioner, before the

Management and police with the allegation that in fact the petitioner was Ramgopal S/o Shamsundar but was working

with the Management in the name of Narmada Prasad S/o Devideen. This complaint was enquired into by the police

and they found no substance in the allegations but the Management conducted a Departmental Enquiry against the

petitioner vide its order dated 11.04.2013 without following the basic rules of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer

submitted his enquiry report on 05.12.2013 wrongly holding the charge of imposition proved and the Disciplinary

Authority also wrongly passed the order of punishment which is illegal, unjust and arbitrary on the part of

Management. He raised a dispute with the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central and after failure of conciliation,

filed the petition seeking relief of setting-aside termination of his services by Management and his reinstatement with

back-wages and benefits.

Case of Management is mainly that, when the petitioner was working with them when he was issued a

charge sheet on 12.01.2013, with the allegation of misconduct as defined under Clause 26.9 of the Standing Orders

with the allegation that he declared false information with regards to his name, age, father‘s name and qualification. A

Departmental Enquiry was conducted with respect to charges. The petitioner also participated in the enquiry. The

charges were found proved. Hence, after issuing show cause notice on the enquiry report and finding the reply of the

show cause notice not sufficient, the order punishment was passed by disciplinary authority. According to

Management, there is no illegality in conducting the Departmental Enquiry, charges were rightly held proved and the

punishment order is also not disproportionate to the misconduct proved.

Following preliminary issue was framed on the basis of pleadings.

1. Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is just legal and proper?

The Workman did not file any evidence on preliminary issue. He had filed enquiry documents, admitted by

Management, marked Exhibit W-1 to W-7. Management filed affidavit of its witness as his cross-examination and

photocopy enquiry papers. No enquiry down by Workman.

On the basis of evidence on record, the preliminary issued was decided vide order dated 11.09.2024

holding the Departmental Enquiry just, legal and proper. This order is part of this judgment.

Following additional issues were framed vide order dated 11.09.2024 :-

1. Whether the charges are proved in the enquiry?

2. Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charges?

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence on these issues. No evidence was adduced by any of the parties.

I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel Shri Neeraj Kewat for Management. None was present for

petitioner for the arguments. No written arguments were filed by any of the parties. I have gone through the record.

Additional issue No. 1 : –

Case of the petitioner is that, his name is Ramgopal @ Narmada Prasad son of Shamsundar @ Devideen.

According to him complaint against him with same allegation was found false on police enquiry. I have gone through

the Photocopy Enquiry Documents which go to show that, there is sufficient evidence on form of Documents as well

Statements of Witnesses recorded during enquiry to support the charge, hence, the finding of the Enquiry Officer with

3826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

respect to the proof of charge of misconduct as stated above is held justified and additional Issue No. 1 is answered

accordingly.

Additional Issue No. 2 : -

The charge of misconduct proved against petitioner is of misconduct by way of impersonation. This is a

serious misconduct involving moral turpitude and attracts major punishment; hence, the punishment awarded also

cannot be held to be so disproportionate to shock the conscience of this Tribunal and does not warrant any

interference.

Additional Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.

On the basis of above discussion, the petition is held without merits and is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

Petition dismissed.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 24/04/2025 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 925.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एडलवाइस टोदकयो लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री नीरज िमा के डीच अनुडंध

में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई ददल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-258/2022) को

जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-57]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 925.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 258/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Co. Ltd and Shri Neeraj Sharma which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-57]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 258/2022

Sh. Neeraj Sharma, S/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma,

R/o M-11, Sainik Nagar, Nawada, New Delhi-110059.

VERSUS

Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

A-22 & 23, 2^nd Floor, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar,

New Delhi-110015.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3827

AWARD

This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an Act) filed by

the claimant.

Claimant in his claim statement has stated that he was working with the management since 30.10.2020 at the

post of ―Clerk‖ and his last drawn salary was Rs. 25,000/-, however, management has given the post to him as a

―Development Manager‖ and was being taken the work of the ―Clerk‖. He did his work well and has not given any

chance of making any complaint to the management nor was he charged while he was in service. He was getting

Bonus and PF facilities, but never been provided Overtime wages, Annual and casual wages, Medical allowance etc.

by the management. When he demanded for the above said facilities, management adopted an evasive attitude and

thereafter, he was illegally terminated from his services on 27.09.2021 without giving any reason, without prior

notice, without paying service compensation, without paying back wages which is a violation of 25 F of the ID Act.

He has sent the demand letter but he has not been taken on duty. He had exhausted legal remedy i.e. going to the

conciliation officer, but, no result was yielded. Hence he filed the claim.

Management has already been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.10.2024.

Now, the matter is listed for ex-parte workman evidence. He is required to file his affidavit, but, neither the

workman nor his AR has been appearing from so many dates to substantiate his claim.

In these circumstances, when the claimant is interested in perusing his case, this tribunal has no option but to

dismiss his claim. Hence, his claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.

Date: 24.04.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 926.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कारृोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया; ओररयन जसक्योररटी सॉल्यूिंस प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों

और श्री सुरेि कुमार के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई ददल्ली,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-39/2019) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-58]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 926.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India; Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd and Shri Suresh Kumar

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-58]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

3828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 39/2019.

Sh. Suresh Kumar vs. L.I.C. and Anr.

Sh. Suresh Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Pitamber,

R/o 69/1, Village- Moti Bagh, Chankya Puri,

South-west, Delhi-110021.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Jeevan Bharti LIC Building, 11^th Floor, New Delhi-110001.

Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

5-E, 1^st Floor, Jungi House, Street No.5, Near BSES Power Station,

Shahpur Jat, New Delhi-110049.

… Managements/respondents

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh. M.L. Pandey, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent:

Sh. Rajiv Katyan, Ld. AR for management-1 (Life Insurance Corporation of India).

Sh. Vidyadhar Sethi, representative for management-2 (Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)

Award

04.04.2025

Item No.- 12

I.D. No. 39/2019

04^th April 2025

Present:

Sh. M.L. Pandey and Ms. Indu Pandey, Ld. ARs along with the claimant.

Sh. Rajiv Katyan, Ld. AR for management-1.

Sh. Vidyadhar Sethi, representative for management-2.

The representative for management-2 has produced a demand draft of Rs. 1,80,000/- in favour of the claimant, as

agreed before the mediation cell in lieu of claims and dues. The said demand draft has been handed over to the

claimant.

The statement of the claimant has been recorded separately that he has received the full and final amount and

therefore wants to withdraw the case.

An amount of Rs. 3,000/- imposed earlier on management-2 has also been paid to AR for the claimant. The

representative for management-2 submits that he will pay the remaining Rs. 2,000/- outside the court. His statement

has also been recorded separately.

In view of the claimant‘s statement on record, the claim stands dismissed as satisfied. The award is passed

accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act.

The file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated 04.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 927.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

सेंरल वेयरहाउशसग कॉृोरेिन; मेसस सुमन फॉरवर्डडग एजेंसी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री

लाल डहादुर ृाल एवं अन्य के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3829

ददल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-210/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार

को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल-42012/01/2018-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 927.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 210/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Life Central Warehousing Corporation; M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd., and

Shri Lal Bhadur Pal & Ors which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42012/01/2018-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR

COURT-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 210/2018

(Reference No. L-42012/1/2018- IR (M) )

Sh. Lal Bhadur Pal & Ors.,

Through- General Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union,

B-1/A, Nathu Colony (East), 100 Foota Road,

Shahdara, Delhi-110096.

VERSUS

1. The Managing Directory,

Central Warehousing Corporation, 4/1, Siri Fort Industrial Area,

August Karanti Marg, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.

2. M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,

C/o Inland Container Corporation, Near Gazipur Village,

Patparganj, Delhi-110096.

AWARD

1. The appropriate Government has sent the reference refered dated 26.11.2018 to this tribunal for adjudication

in the following words:

Whether the action of M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd.,

contractor under M/s Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), New Delhi

in not paying full wages to the workmen Sh. Lal Bahadur Pal and 6 others

(As per Annexure) for the entire month despite the fact that the workmen have

worked for entire month is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workers are entitled to?

Whether deduction of wages by M/s Suman Forwarding Agency Pvt.

Ltd., contractor under M/s Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), New

Delhi for the holidays and 2^nd Saturdays from the wages of the workmen is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workers are entitled to?‖

3830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. After receiving the reference workmen had filed the claim statement. W.S had been filed by the

respondent-1. He had denied the averment made in their claim statement. Respondent-2 was proceeded ex-

parte on 05.04.2019.

3. After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 13.12.2023 i.e.-

1. As per term of reference?

2. Whether there is no relationship between the employee and employer between the claimants and the

management.

3. Whether the dispute has been legally and properly espoused? If not its affect.

4. Relief, if any.

4. Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. Workmen are required to file their affidavits of evidence,

but, neither the workmen nor their AR is appearing from several dates to substantiate their claim.

5. In these circumstances, when the claimants are not interested in pursuing their case, this tribunal has no other

option but to dismiss the claim. Hence, their claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of

this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act

1947. File is consigned to record room

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 13.05.2025

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 928.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

कंटेनर कॉृोरेिन ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड; एजियन कागो एंड मूवस के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और इंजडयन स्ट्टील एंड

मेटल वक स यूजनयन श्री िफ़ीक़ मोहम्मद, श्री लोकेि कुमार, श्री सोहजल खान के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई ददल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-212/2022, 213/2022, 214/2022) को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-60]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 928.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 212/2022, 213/2022, 214/2022) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Container Corporation of India Ltd; Asian

Cargo & Movers and Indian Steel and Metal Workers Union Shri Shafiq Mohammed, Shri Lokesh

Kumar, Shri Sohail Khan which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-60]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II, NEW

DELHI

I.D. NO. 212/2022

Sh. Shafiq Mohd. S/o Sh. Tubarak Hussain,

R/o- 168, F-03, Shiv Durga Vihar, Lakkarpur, Faridabad,

Haryana-121009.

Through-Indian Steel & Metal Workers Union,

46, Nehru Market, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.

I.D. NO. 213/2022

Sh. Lokesh Kumar, S/o SH. Samay Singh,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3831

R/o- C-283/A, Pul Prahaladpur, New Delhi-110044.

Through-Indian Steel & Metal Workers Union,

46, Nehru Market, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.

I.D. NO. 214/2022

Sh. Sohail Khan, S/o Sh. Mobin Khan,

R/o- D-01/579, Vishwakarma Colony, Gali No. 06,

Jaitpur, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.

Through-Indian Steel & Metal Workers Union,

46, Nehru Market, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.

VERSUS

1. Container Corporation of India Ltd.

Inland Content Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020.

2. Asian Cargo & Movers,

Room No. 302, 03^rd Floor, ICD Tughlakabad,

New Delhi-110019.

3. Asian Cargo & Movers,

Office No. 02, 01^st Floor, DDA Market, B-Block,

Yojna Vihar, New Delhi-110092.

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these three applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act

(here in after referred as an ‗Act‘) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having

the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination. Claims

of the workmen are that they have been serving the management-1 through management-2 & 3. Name and particular

of their employment are given below-

List of Workmen

Sr.

No.

Name

Post

Dates of Joining

Dates of

Termination

Last drawn

Salary

Shafiq Mohd.

Telly Clerk

12.08.2015

18.09.2017

7,000/-

Lokesh Kumar

Telly Clerk

04.02.2014

18.09.2017

7,000/-

Sohail Khan

Telly Clerk

07.04.2015

18.09.2017

7,000/-

They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records are clean and they have

not given any complaint so far. The employers had made the claimants‘ signs on many blank papers, blank vouchers,

blank agreement letters and blank appointment letters at the time of appointment during the service but did not give a

copy of the same to the claimants. During the services, management never provided legal facilities like Minimum

wages, Appointment letter, wages slip, leave book, attendance card, annual and festival holidays, ESI & PF etc. When

the claimants demanded all the above mentioned legal benefits, the employer immediately became angry and in a

spirit of revenge, without paying the earned salary to the workmen from 01.07.2017 & 01.08.2017 to 17.09.2017

respectively, without prior notice, without any notice charge sheet, without any rhyme and reason, claimants were

illegally terminated by the management on 18.09.2017. They had gone to the conciliation officer, but, no results were

yielded. Hence, they have filed the present claims.

W.S has been filed by the respondent-1, stating that workmen were the employee of M-2 & 3. Therefore, the

present claims are not maintainable against the M-1 and are liable to be dismissed.

Management-2 and 3 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2023.

3832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After completion of the pleadings, following identical issues in all cases have been framed vide order dated

03.10.2023 i.e.-

Whether the services of the claimants were illegally terminated by the managements? (OPW)

If the answer of the issue no. 1 is affirmative, then what relief the claimants are entitled to and from which

date?

Now, these matters are listed for workman evidence. AR of the claimants Sh. Amit Tripathi submitted that

workmen are not in touch with him.

In these circumstances, when claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claims, it

appears that they are not interested to peruse their cases. Their claims stand dismissed. Awards are passed

accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17

of the ID act 1947. These files are consigned to record room. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date- 29.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 929.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

कंडाटा एजवएिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; इंटरनेिनल एयरृोट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राम रतन के

डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई ददल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-

35/2023) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-61]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 929.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Cambata Aviation Private Limited; International Airport Limited and Shri Ram Ratan which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-61]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.35/2023

Sh. Ram Ratan S/o Sh. Lal Singh C/o S.B. Shailly, D-195, Karampura, New Delhi-110015.

…Claimant

Versus

1. Chief Operating Officer-India, Cambata Aviation Provate Limited, Bay-81, Line Maintenance Building, Block-A,

IGI Airport Terminal-III, New Delhi-110037.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3833

2. The CEO International Airport Limited, Uddan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037.

…Management

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND.96(14)/ID(2A)2022-

DY.CLC dated 25.01.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

The Schedule

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Cambata Aviaiton Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Ratan

S/o Late Sh. Lal Singh, ex- Driver-cum-Utility Hand, w.e.f. 18.08.2016 if legal, just and proper? If not, what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?‖

In the reference order, the appropriate Government 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 the opposite parties involved in the dispute.

Claim statement was filed but rebuttal written statement was not filed on behalf of either of the managements.

After that, none appeared on behalf of the claimant despite serving notice to substantiate his claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute award

is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the appropriate

government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Date: 19.05.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 930.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

कंडाटा एजवएिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; इंटरनेिनल एयरृोट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सतीि चंद के

36/2023) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-62]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 930.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Cambata Aviation Private Limited; International Airport Limited and Shri Satish Chand which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-62]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

3834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.36/2023

Sh. Satish Chand S/o Sh. Ramu Singh C/o S.B. Shailly, D-195, Karampura, New Delhi-110015.

…Claimant

Versus

Chief Operating Officer-India, Cambata Aviation Provate Limited, Bay-81, Line Maintenance Building,

Block-A, IGI Airport Terminal-III, New Delhi-110037.

The CEO International Airport Limited, Uddan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037.

…Management

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-

ND.96(15)/ID(2A)2022-DY.CLC dated 25.01.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

The Schedule

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Cambata Aviaiton Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh.

Satish Chand S/o Sh. Ramu Singh, ex-Driver-cum-Utility Hand, w.e.f. 18.08.2016 if legal, just and proper? If

not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖

In the reference order, the appropriate Government 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 the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Claim statement was filed but rebuttal written statement was not filed on behalf of either of the

managements.

After that, none appeared on behalf of the claimant despite serving notice to substantiate his claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Date: 19.05.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 931.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार कंडाटा

एजवएिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; इंटरनेिनल एयरृोट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सुरेन्र शसह के डीच

अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नई ददल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-38/2023)

को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-64]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3835

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 931.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 38/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Cambata Aviation Private Limited; International Airport Limited and Shri Surender Singh which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-64]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.38/2023

Sh. Surender Singh S/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand C/o S.B. Shailly, D-195, Karampura, New Delhi-110015.

…Claimant

Versus

Chief Operating Officer-India, Cambata Aviation Provate Limited, Bay-81, Line Maintenance Building,

Block-A, IGI Airport Terminal-III, New Delhi-110037.

The CEO International Airport Limited, Uddan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037.

…Management

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-

ND.96(17)/ID(2A)2022-DY.CLC dated 25.01.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

The Schedule

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Cambata Aviaiton Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh.

Surencer Singh S/o Sh. Lakhmi Chand, ex-Utility Hand-cum-Sweeper, w.e.f. 18.08.2016 if legal, just and

proper? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖

In the reference order, the appropriate Government 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 the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Claim statement was filed but rebuttal written statement was not filed on behalf of either of the

managements.

After that, none appeared on behalf of the claimant despite serving notice to substantiate his claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Date: 19.05.2025 ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

3836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 932.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेसस मोइल जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रम िजक्त सेवा संगठन के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-09/2020-21) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल-27011/4/2019-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 932.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 09/2020-21) 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 M/s MOIL Limited and Shram Shakti Seva Sanghatan which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-27011/4/2019-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/09/2020-21

Date: 16.05.2025.

Party No.1:

The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,

M/s MOIL Limited,

MOIL Bhawan, 1-A, Katol Road,

Nagpur (MS) – 440013.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The General Secretary,

Shram Shakti Seva Sanghatan,

R/o Qtr. No. 37, LIC Colony,

Near Om Anand Apartment Godhni Rly.,

Godhni, Nagpur – 440011.

AWARD

(Dated: 16th May, 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 M/s Moil Limited, and their Union/ Shram Shakti

Seva Sangathan., for adjudication, as per letter No. L-27011/4/2019-(IR(M)) dated 28.05.2020, with the following

schedule:-

―Whether the action of management of MOIL Ltd., Nagpur in not granting the appointment on

compassionate grounds as per the prescribed ―MOIL Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2013 to the legal

heirs(s) of late Shri Bisen Uikey and late Smt. Chandrabai Uikey as raised by Shram Shakti Seva Sanghatan

vide letter dated 08.04.2019 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what reliefs the legal heirs(s) of late Shri Bisen

Uikey and late Smt. Chandrabai Uikey are entitled to? What other directions, if any, are necessary in the

matter?‖

Case is called out. Shri. Vinay Rathi, Learned Counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent

today in Court, which is taken on record. None is present on behalf of petitioner despite service of notices. No

statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3837

been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since very beginning of the case. It

appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of management of MOIL Ltd., Nagpur in not granting the appointment on compassionate

grounds as per the prescribed ―MOIL Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2013 to the legal heirs(s) of late Shri

Bisen Uikey and late Smt. Chandrabai Uikey as raised by Shram Shakti Seva Sanghatan vide letter dated

08.04.2019 is proper, legal and justified. The legal heirs(s) of late Shri Bisen Uikey and late Smt. Chandrabai

Uikey are not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 933.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेसस

जतप ृजत इंटरप्राइजेज कॉन्रजक्टर अल्राटेक सीमेंट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री रामरतन ृी. ृाण्डेय

के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-16/2022-23) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-66]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 933.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 16/2022-23) 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 M/s Tirupati Enterprises Contractor of Ultratech Cement Limited and Shri Ramratan P. Pandey

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-66]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/16/2022-23

Date: 14.05.2025.

Party No.1:

M/s Tirupati Enterprise, Contractor of Ultratech

Cement Limited, Unit Manikgarh Cement Works,

Gadchandur (Erstwhile Manikgarh Cement a division

Of Century Textiles & Industries Limited), Gadchandur,

Distt. – Chandrapur – 442908.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Ramratan P. Pandey, QTR. No.

10/01/01/Loader Colony, Bengali

Camp, PO – Gadchandur, Tah. Korpana,

Distt. Chandrapur – 442908.

AWARD

(Dated: 14^th May, 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 M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Contractor of Ultratech

3838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Cement Limited, Umit Manikgarh Cement Works, Gadchandur ( erstwhile Manikgarh Cement (a division of Century

Textiles & Industries Limited), and their workman Shri Ramratan P. Pandey, for adjudication, as per letter No.

ALCH/8(13)/2021-ID/IR dated 16.06.2022, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Contractor of Ultratech Cement

Limited, Unit Manikgarh Cement Works, Gadchandur (erstwhile Manikgarh Cement (a division of Century

Textiles & Industries Limited) in terminating services of Shri Ramratan P. Pandey with immediate effect from

31/07/2018, without affording him an opportunity of being heard as per the principles of natural justice, is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?‖

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since last

four dates i.e. 16/04/2024, 27/06/2024, 12/09/2024 and 05/12/2024. Although statement of claim has been filed by the

petitioner but no written statement has been filed by the respondent till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to

establish his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since 16/04/2024. It appears that he is not interested to contest

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

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Contractor of Ultratech Cement Limited,

Unit Manikgarh Cement Works, Gadchandur (erstwhile Manikgarh Cement (a division of Century Textiles &

Industries Limited) in terminating services of Shri Ramratan P. Pandey with immediate effect from

31/07/2018, without affording him an opportunity of being heard as per the principles of natural justice, is

legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 934.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेसस

जतप ृजत इंटरप्राइजेज कॉन्रजक्टर अल्राटेक सीमेंट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ददनकर ृरिुराम लांडे

के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-

14/2022-23) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-67]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 934.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 14/2022-23) 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 M/s Tirupati Enterprises Contractor of Ultratech Cement Limited and Shri Dinkar Parshuram

Lande which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-67]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/14/2022-23

Date: 14.05.2025.

Party No.1:

M/s Tirupati Enterprise, Contractor of Ultratech

Cement Limited, Unit Manikgarh Cement Works,

Gadchandur (Erstwhile Manikgarh Cement a division

Of Century Textiles & Industries Limited), Gadchandur,

Distt. – Chandrapur – 442908.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3839

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Dinkar Parshuram Lande,

Ward No. 2, At PO – Lakmapur, Tah.

Korpana, Gadchandur, Distt.

Chandrapur – 442908.

AWARD

(Dated: 14^th May, 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 M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Contractor of Ultratech

Cement Limited, Umit Manikgarh Cement Works, Gadchandur ( erstwhile Manikgarh Cement (a division of Century

Textiles & Industries Limited), and their workman Shri Dinkar Parshuram Lande, for adjudication, as per letter No.

ALCH/8(15)/2021-ID dated 16.06.2022, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Contractor of Ultratech Cement

Limited, Unit Manikgarh Cement Works, Gadchandur (erstwhile Manikgarh Cement (a division of Century

Textiles & Industries Limited) in terminating services of Shri Dinkar Parshuram Lande with immediate effect

from 31/07/2018, without affording him an opportunity of being heard as per the principles of natural justice,

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?‖

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since last

four dates i.e. 16/04/2024, 27/06/2024, 12/09/2024 and 05/12/2024. Although statement of claim has been filed by the

petitioner but no written statement has been filed by the respondent till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to

establish his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since 16/04/2024. It appears that he is not interested to contest

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

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s Tirupati Enterprises, Contractor of Ultratech Cement Limited,

Unit Manikgarh Cement Works, Gadchandur (erstwhile Manikgarh Cement (a division of Century Textiles &

Industries Limited) in terminating services of Shri Dinkar Parshuram Lande with immediate effect from

31/07/2018, without affording him an opportunity of being heard as per the principles of natural justice, is

legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 935.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेसस

अंडुजा सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड; मेसस ओम एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कृष्णराम यादव के डीच

अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-37/2022-23)

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-68]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 935.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 37/2022-23) 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 M/s Ambuja Cements Limited; M/s Om Enterprises and Shri Krushnaram Yadav which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-68]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

3840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/37/2022-23

Date: 14.05.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Unit Head,

M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd.

Maratha Cement Works, At-

Upparwahi, Tah. Korpana, Distt.

Chandrapur – 442908.

2. M/s Om Enterprises,

126/127, Patliputra Apartment,

Flat no. 302, Sec. – 20, Belapur

Village, Navi Mumbai – 400614.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Krushnaram Yadav, R/o Hindustan

Lalpeth Colliery No. 3, By – Pass Road,

Near HP Gas Agency, PO – Lalpeth

Chandrapur, - 442507.

AWARD

(Dated: 14th May, 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 M/s Om Enterprises, Contractor of Ambuja Cement

Limited, and their workman Shri Krushnaram Chabila Yadav, for adjudication, as per letter No. NGP/8(08)/2022

ID(ALCCHP) dated 20.01.2023, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Om Enterprises, Contractor of Ambuja Cements

Limited, Maratha Cement Works, Upparwahi, in terminating services of Shri Krushnaram Chabila Yadav,

workman/contract labour, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?‖

Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. Nishant Hazare is present before the Court.

None is present on behalf of petitioner. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 05.10.2023. No

Statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has

been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since 05.10.2023. It appears that

petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s Om Enterprises, Contractor of Ambuja Cements Limited,

Maratha Cement Works, Upparwahi, in terminating services of Shri Krushnaram Chabila Yadav,

workman/contract labour, is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 936.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेसस मोइल जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और मोइल जनिजक्त मज़दूर संघ के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-07/2020-21) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

[फा.सं. एल-27011/1/2020-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3841

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 936.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 07/2020-21) 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 M/s MOIL Limited and MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-27011/1/2020-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/07/2020-21

Date: 16.05.2025.

Party No.1:

The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,

M/s MOIL Limited,

MOIL Bhawan, 1-A, Katol Road,

Nagpur (MS) – 440013.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The General Secretary,

MOIL Janshakti Majdur Sangh

Balaghat (MP), Siddhi Vinayak

Apartment, Zenda Chowk,

Mahal, Nagpur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 16^th May, 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 M/s Moil Limited, and their union/M.J.M.S., for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-27011/1/2020 (IR(M)) dated 14.07.2020, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of MOIL Limited, Nagpur in not giving any facilities and not

inviting in the meeting to the M.J.M.S. Union is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the M.J.M.S. Union is

entitled to?‖

Case is called out. Shri. Vinay Rathi, Learned Counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent

today in Court, which is taken on record. None is present on behalf of petitioner despite service of notices. No

statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has

been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since very beginning of the case. It

appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of MOIL Limited, Nagpur in not giving any facilities and not inviting in

the meeting to the M.J.M.S. Union is just fair & legal. The M.J.M.S. Union is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 937.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार एयरृोट

अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; एृीएम एयर कारगो टर्ममनल सर्मवसेज; मेसस सेलेडी ददल्ली कारगो के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध

जनयोजकों और श्री राम करन थ्रू एयरृोट एम्प्लाइज यूजनयन के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई ददल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-47/2014) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,

प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-69]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

3842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 937.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 47/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Airports Authority of India; APM Air Cargo Terminal Services; M/s Celebi Delhi Cargo and Shri

Ram Karan through Airport Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-69]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 47/2014

Sh. Ram Karan, S/o Sh. Har Kishan,

Through-Airport Employees Union, BTR Bhawan,

13A Rouse Avenue,

New Delhi-110002.

VERSUS

1. The Director,

AAI, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,

Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi,

New Delhi-110003.

2. APM Air Cargo Terminal Services,

107, Transport Centre, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi,

New Delhi-110035.

3. The Director,

M/s Celebi Delhi Cargo

Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.,

Room No. 23, Import Building, 1^st Floor,

International Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport,

New Delhi-110037.

4. The Director,

DIAL, Udaan Bhawan,

IGI Airport, New Delhi,

New Delhi-110037.

AWARD

The appropriate Government has sent the reference refered dated 04.04.2014 to this tribunal for adjudication

in the following words:

―Whether the retirement of the workman Sh. Ram Karan S/o Sh. Har Kish on the basis of recorded of his date of

birth as 12.02.52 is just, fair and legal?‖ ―Whether the retirement or compulsory retirement of the workman Sh.

Ram Karan S/o Sh. Har Kish may be treated as retrenchment? If yes whether he is entitled to notice pay,

compensation, leave encashment etc.? If not what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖

After receiving the reference workman had filed the claim statement. W.S had been filed by the respondents.

Issues were framed vide order dated 28.11.2016. Workman was asked to lead evidence however, he had not appeared.

His cross-examination is closed.

Now, the matter is listed for management evidence, but neither the workman nor his AR has been appearing

from several dates.

In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long, it appears that he is not

interested in perusing his case. Hence, His claim stands dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3843

award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is

consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer.

Date: 02.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 938.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

कंडाटा एजवएिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; इंटरनेिनल एयरृोट जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कृष्ण कुमार के

37/2023) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-63]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 938.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 37/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Cambata Aviation Private Limited; International Airport Limited and Shri Krishan Kumar which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-63]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.37/2023

Sh. Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish C/o S.B. Shailly, D-195, Karampura, New Delhi-110015.

…Claimant

Versus

Chief Operating Officer-India, Cambata Aviation Provate Limited, Bay-81, Line Maintenance Building,

Block-A, IGI Airport Terminal-III, New Delhi-110037.

The CEO International Airport Limited, Uddan Bhawan, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037.

…Management

AWARD

1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-

ND.96(16)/ID(2A)2022-DY.CLC dated 25.01.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

The Schedule

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Cambata Aviaiton Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh.

Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Jagsish, ex-Driver-cum-Utility Hand, w.e.f. 18.08.2016 if legal, just and proper? If

not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖

3844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the reference order, the appropriate Government 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 the opposite parties involved in

the dispute. Claim statement was filed but rebuttal written statement was not filed on behalf of either of the

managements.

After that, none appeared on behalf of the claimant despite serving notice to substantiate his claim.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Date: 19.05.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 30 मई, 2025

का.आ. 939.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एसीसी जलजमटेड; मजसस जी.आर. इंजीजनयररग के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और सफेद झंडा कामगार संगठन के डीच

अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-29/2022-23)

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल-29011/46/2022-आईआर(एम)-66]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th May, 2025

S.O. 939.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2022-23) 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 ACC Limited; M/s G.R. Engineering and Safed Jhanda Kamgar Sanghatana which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-29011/46/2022 -IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/29/2022-23

Date: 03.04.2025.

Party No.1:

1) The General Manager,

Acc Ltd, Chanda Cement Works,

Cement Nagar, Nakoda, Chandrapur,

(M.S.) – 442505.

2) The Proprietor, M.s G.R. Engineering,

Nivedita, Plot No. 40, Dattreya Gruhnirman

Society, Manish Nagar, Near Jai Durga Society-4,

Nagpur-440015.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The President,

Safed Jhanda Kamgar Sanghatana,

Dr. Sontakke Hospital, Ward No. 6,

Ghugus, Chandrapur (M.S.)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3845

AWARD

(Dated: 03^rd April, 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 ACC Limited, and their workmen Shri. Dattatray

Vitthal Waghmare, Sharad Malhari Paikrao, Ashok David Asampalli and Mahesh Vishnu Sharma for adjudication, as

per letter No. L-29011/46/2022 (IR(M)) dated 25.11.2022, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the demand raised by Safed Jhanda Kamgar Sanghatana, Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur in

respect of workmen Shri Dattatray Vitthal Waghmare, Sharad Malhari Paikrao, Ashok David Asampalli and

Mahesh Vishnu Sharma against the action of the contractor, M/s G.R. Engineering, Nagpur under the

management of ACC Limited, Chanda Cement Works, Distt. Chandrapur for terminating the services of these

workmen is proper, legal and justified? If yes, what relief these workmen are entitled to?‖

Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since

14.03.2024 i.e. near about last one year. Petitioner and respondent have not filed their statement of claim and written

statement respectively till date. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not

coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the

petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The demand raised by Safed Jhanda Kamgar Sanghatana, Ghugus, Distt. Chandrapur in respect of

workmen Shri Dattatray Vitthal Waghmare, Sharad Malhari Paikrao, Ashok David Asampalli and Mahesh

Vishnu Sharma against the action of the contractor, M/s G.R. Engineering, Nagpur under the management of

ACC Limited, Chanda Cement Works, Distt. Chandrapur for terminating the services of these workmen is

improper, illegal and unjustified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 940.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj यूजनयन डैंक ऑफ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV

(a94/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा.सं.

-12012/47/2016- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 940.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.94/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their

workmen.

[F.No. L-12012/47/2016- IR(B.II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/94/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The General Secretary,

Dainik Vetanbhogi Bank Karmachari Sanghatan

F-1, Trupti Vihar, Indore Road,

Ujjain - 456010

3846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman

1. The Regional Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Regional Office,

12-12A, Anoop Nagar,

LIG Square, A B Road,

Indore - 452011

2. M/s Trust Worthy Security Services,

E-2/73, Arera Colony,

Bhopal – 462016,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 13^thday of May - 2025)

As per letter dated 28/11/2016 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-12012/47/2016 (IR(B-II)) dt. 28/11/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:

―1) During the total period from 23-08-2005 to 03-02-2011 where Mr. Jitendra Parwat worked in which

capacity and under whom he worked? Who was his employer during this period 23-08-2005 to 03-02-2011?

Whether it is Union Bank of India or whether it is M/s. Trust Worthy Security Services-contractor of Bank?

2) During the total period from 23-08-2005 to 03-02-2011, for which period Mr. Jitendra Parwat worked

directly under Union Bank of India and for which period whether the Union Bank of India has to pay Bonus?

How much amount of Bonus has to be paid by the Bank? Since the Bank has already paid Rs. 2950-48 on 31-03-

2016 whether any further amount is due to be paid by the Bank?

3) During the total period from 23-08-2005 to 03-02-2011, for which period he worked directly under M/s.

Trust Worthy Security Services, and for such period, Whether the Union Bank of India has the obligation to pay

the Bonus to Mr. Jitendra Parwat or not?‖

According to the Workman, he worked with the Bank as a Daily Wager Peon, from 30.08.2005 to

30.06.2008 and from 01.07.2008 to 03.02.2011, as a Outsource Employee. He entitled to bonus on basis of his Work

done which is not paid by the Management Bank on the basis of his work done rather the Management Bank paid Rs.

2950.48/- as bonus which is not as per the Bonus Act. The Workman has further requested that he be held entitled to

get Bonus from the Bank or the Outsource Agency on the basis of actual days of work done by him.

Case of Management is mainly that, he was never engaged by Management in any capacity. He was a daily

wager worker who worked with the Bank for few Hours as and when required. He was paid bonus for the period he

worked in Bank, and also that Bank is not under obligation to pay Bonus for the days he worked with the Outsource

Agency.

In evidence, the Workman has filed Photocopy documents which are authenticated by Bank, he filed other

photocopy documents also, he did not care to proof. He filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He has not been

cross-examined by Management.

Management has not filed any evidence, in support of their pleading.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Workman Mr. Arun Patel, none appeared for Bank. No

written argument filed by any of the parties. I have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand. In his affidavit, the Workman has

stated that he regularly worked with the Bank and was paid by Bank whereas according to his allegations in his

statement of claim, he has put his case that he worked with the Bank only for 2 years i.e. from 23.08.2005 to

30.06.2005 and thereafter he worked as a Outsourced Employee till 03.02.2011. The Voucher Register Copy filed

does not fully corroborate the case of the Workman regarding the number of days he worked with the Bank. As an

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3847

outsider engaged by the Bank within the period of 23.08.2005 to 30.06.2008. Admittedly, he has been paid bonus by

Management Bank which the Workman claims to be inadequate but there is no evidence to corroborate this case. The

Outsourcing party never appeared.

On the basis of above discussion, the Workman is held entitled to get bonus from the Outsourcing Agency,

M/s Trust Worthy Security Services, from 01.07.2008 to 03.02.2011, on the basis of working days to be calculated

by the Outsourcing Agency. The Workman is further held not entitled to get bonus from Management Bank, as he

has already been paid bonus by the Management Bank for the period he was engaged by the Management Bank.

Reference stands answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 13/05/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA. Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 941. —औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

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

fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV

(a16/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा.सं. ,y-39025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-12]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 941.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.16/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur

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

workmen.

[F.No. L-39025/01/2025- IR(B.II)-12]

SALONI, Dy. Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/16/2024

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Nikhil Rahangdale

S/o. Shri Jagannath Rahangdale

Village – Dharnakalan, Tehsil – Barghat

District – Seoni (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

1. Managing Director

Bank of Maharashtra

Head Office, Lokmangal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar

Pune-411005 (M.H.)-411005

2. Zonal Manager

Bank of Maharashtra

3848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chhindwara (M.P.)

3. Branch Manager

Bank of Maharashtra

Branch Dharna, Seoni (M.P.)-482002

Management

LOK-ADALAT AWARD

(Passed on this 10^th day of May - 2025.)

The petitioner has filed this petition u/s. 10(2) (2&3) of The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 against his

termination by management Bank.

After registering a case, notice were sent to the management. They appeared through their respective

Counsel. On 09.05.2025 in Pre-Lok-Adalat sitting, the petitioner withdrew his petition as the matter has been settled

between the parties.

AWARD

Since, the dispute has ceased to exist in the light of settlement, a no dispute Award is passed.

DATE: 10/05/2025

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 942. —औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

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

iapkV (a15/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा.सं. ,y - 12012/09/2015- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 942.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.15/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workmen.

[F.No. L-12012/09/2015- IR(B.I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/15/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Vikas Gupta

S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta

150-B, Sheetal Nagar, Vijay Nagar

Square, Indore (M.P.)

Applicant

Dy. General Manager

Retail Business Group,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3849

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Bandar Kurla Complex, Mumbai.

Management

With

CGIT/LC/RC/12/2014

Vikas Gupta

S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta

150-B, Sheetal Nagar, Vijay Nagar

Square, Indore (M.P.)

Applicant

Dy. General Manager

Retail Business Group,

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Bandar Kurla Complex, Mumbai.

Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 07thday of May-2025)

As per letter dated 30/01/2015 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-12012/09/2015/IR(B-I) dt. 30/01/2015.

The dispute under reference related to :-

1. ―Whether Shri Vikas Gupta S/o. Rajendra Kumar Gupta, designated as Senior Development Officer in

ICICI Bank is a workman under I.D. Act 1947 as per nature of job performed by him ?

2. If so, whether the action of management of ICICI Bank in terminating the services of Shri Vikas Gupta

S/o. Rajendra Kumar Gupta w.e.f. 07.08.2013 without following procedure under I.D. Act 1947 is justified

? If so, what relief Shri Vikas Gupta is entitled to ?‖

The Applicant has also filed petition under Section 2(A) (2 & 3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1949 (in

short the Act), against termination of his services by the Management which is registered as RC/12/2014 in the same

matter. Since, both the cases are with same facts, regarding same dispute between same parties the RC/12/2014 has

been consolidated with the reference case R/15/2015. The reference case has been made the leading file.

Case of the applicant is that he had joined the Management as Senior Development Officer initially on

probation under order of management dated 09.09.2011 his probation for one year. He was confirmed w.e.f

19.09.2012 vide order of management dated 02.10.2012 and was posted in Indore. He was assigned with the work of

collecting documents pertaining to loan and other services from the customers, was required to do the work of

consolidation of documents and forward the same to his superiors for necessary approvals and sanctions. He was also

required to look into the complaints of the customers and forward the same to the superior officers for redressal. He

was not working in any managerial or supervisory capacity. He was issued a termination order dated 07.08.2013 by

management stating that his services were no more require as the Bank had lost confidence in him. This termination

was issued to him as a surprise without issuing any show cause notice or any inquiry. He preferred an appeal against

his termination before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed. According to the applicant, this action of

management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He raised a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner

conciliation failed, hence this reference and petition. He has thus prayed that, setting aside the order of Management

dated 07.08.2013 terminating him from services, he be reinstated with all back-wages and benefits and be deemed in

continuous service of Management.

3850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In its written statement/reply, the Management has taken a case that firstly, the applicant is not a workman

as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Act because he was working as an Officer of the Bank getting emoluments Rs. 22305/- and

in managerial capacity. His work was redressal of complaints of customers which is a work of logical nature also his

work was for asset verification etc. with respect to sanction of loan which is of supervisory/managerial nature.

According to management, the main jobs assigned to the applicant were as follows :-

1. Sourcing and handling business.

2. Servicing customers queries.

3. Term loan installment collection.

4. Customer engagement visit.

5. Asset verification, post loan disbursal.

6. Creation of charge on the collateral land, etc.

This is also the case of management that many complaints in writing were received against the applicant by

Kisan Credit Card holder and borrower Mahadev Kaushal on 12.06.2013 and Azad Patel as well Arif Patel on

13.06.2013 sent by the complainants to the Branch Manager. The applicant had put his explanation with respect to

these complaints on 14.06.2013 in which he admitted in writing financial transaction of Rs. 50,000/- with borrower

Ashiq Patel. According to management the Clause-3 of the appointment offer dated 09.09.2011 accepted by the

applicant provided the following

―After conformation, your services would be liable to be terminated by giving 90 days notice or on

payment of 90 days gross salary in lieu of notice period.‖

The applicant was terminated from service by using this Clause after paying him 90 days advance salary by

way of Cheque dated 07.08.2013. Management has also pleaded that having financial transactions with customers is

unacceptable in banking, which was not followed by the applicant, hence his services were terminated and the

Appellate Authority rightly dismissed his appeal against termination.

Following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide his order dated 13.05.2016:-

1. Whether the first party is workman as defined under Section 2(S) of the Act.

2. Whether terminating services of the applicant without conducting full fledged inquiry is legal ?

3. Whether termination services of applicant without complying provision of I.D. Act is legal and

justified ?

4. If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to ?

In evidence, the applicant filed his appointment letter/offer dated 09.09.2011, his conformation letter dated

10.02.2012, termination letter dated 07.08.2013, order of Appellate Authority, notice by Regional Labour

Commissioner during conciliation proceedings issued to management and various postal receipts all admitted by

management, hence marked Exb. W/1 to W/6. The applicant has also filed his affidavit as his examination in chief.

He has been cross examined by management.

Management has filed and proved failure of conciliation report, pay slip of the applicant for August-2013,

June-2013 and July-2013, three letters of applicant dated 14.06.2013 explaining the transactions alleged. Statement of

Bank Account, statement of account of Ashiq Patel and the applicant all admitted by applicant marked Exb. M/1 to

M/8. The management also filed certified statement of account of the applicant, which is marked as Exb. M/9. The

management examined his witness Kapil Dev Singh on affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross

examined by applicant learned Counsel.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Pranay Choubey for the applicant and Mr. Rahul Dubey

for Management. I have gone through the record as well.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3851

The first argument of Learned Counsel for Management is that the applicant is not a Applicant as

defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and secondly, there is no illegality committed by Management in terminating

services of petitioner in the light of his appointment contract.

Learned Counsel for applicant has replied the First argument on the ground that it is nowhere pleaded nor

is proved by Management that the applicant is not a Applicant as defined under the Act. And Secondly, from the

evidence on record which is almost not disputed, it is established that the termination is punitive, passed without

enquiry hence the action of Management is arbitrarily, unjust and illegal.

Issue No. 1.

Section 2(s) of the Act, which defines Applicant, is being reproduced as follows:

2(s) ―Workman‖ means any person including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the

terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in

relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or

retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

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

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per

mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers

vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.……………………….

Learned Counsel for Management has relied on judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of

Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V.s. Ramesh Kumbla and Others reported in MANU/MH/0073/1999 and another

judgment of the same High Court in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V.s. D. Samuel and Others reported in

MANU/MH/1713/1998. In these two cases, after analyzing the judgment of various High Courts and Hon‘ble

Supreme Court, the Single Bench of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has summarized the principles on the basis of

which it is to be decided whether the Applicant is in supervisory capacity or not. These tests mentioned in Para 34

and 35 of the Judgment are being reproduced as follows:

Para-34.

In so far as the Apex Court is concerned, some of the tests laid down are:

(1)

Designation is not material but what is important is the nature of work.

(2)

Find out the dominant purpose of employment and not any additional duties the employee may be

performing.

(3)

Can he bind the Company/employer to some kind of decisions on behalf of the

Company/employer.

(4)

Has the employee power to direct or oversee the work of his subordinates.

(5)

Has the power to sanction leave or recommend it; and

(6)

Has he the power to appoint, terminate or take disciplinary action against workmen.

Para-35.

From the judgment of this Court and the other High Courts some of the tests apart from

what the Apex Court has stated are:

(a) Whether the employee can examine the quality of work and whether such work is performed in

satisfactory manner or not;

(b) Does the employee have powers of assigning duties and distribution of work;

3852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(c) Can he indent material and distribute the same amongst the workmen;

(d) Even though he has no authority to grant leave does he have power to recommend leave;

(e) Are there persons working under him;

(f) Has he the power to supervise the work of men and not merely machines;

(g) Dos he mark the attendance of other employees;

(h) Does he write the confidential reports of his subordinates.

Learned Counsel for applicant has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Maini

vs. M/s. Carona Sahu Company, (1994) 3 SCC 510. Para 9, 10 & 11 of this judgment are being reproduced as

follows :-

―9. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and

functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and

materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to

the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases. When an employee is

employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition of workman under Section 2(s), there is hardly any

difficulty in treating him as a workman under the appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or

commercial organisations quite a large number of employees are often required to do more than one kind of work.

In such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose

of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. In this connection, reference may

be made to the decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burmah

Shell Management Staff Assn. [(1970) 3 SCC 378 : (1971) 2 SCR 758 : (1970) 2 LLJ 590] In All India Reserve

Bank Employees' Assn. v. Reserve Bank of India [(1965) 2 LLJ 175 : AIR 1966 SC 305 : (1966) 1 SCR 25] it has

been held by this Court that the word ‗supervise‘ and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often

be construed in the light of context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as

manual work coupled with the power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. It has been

rightly contended by both the learned counsel that the designation of an employee is not of much importance and

what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main

duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the

work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is

mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work,

the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or

of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or

only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the

purview of ‗workman‘ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

10. In Mcleod and Co. v. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, W.B. [AIR 1958 Cal 273] P.B. Mukharji, J. of the Calcutta

High Court as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed that whether a person was a workman within the

definition of the Industrial Disputes Act would be the very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.

The court further observed that in order to determine the categories of service indicated by the use of different

words like ‗supervisory‘, ‗managerial‘ and ‗administrative‘, it was not necessary to import the notions of one into

the interpretation of the other. The words such as ‗supervisory‘, ‗managerial‘ and ‗administrative‘ are advisedly

loose expressions with no rigid frontiers and too much subtlety should not be used in trying to precisely define

where supervision ends and management begins or administration starts. For that would be theoretical and not

practical. It has to be broadly interpreted from a common sense point of view where tests will be simple both in

theory and in their application. The learned Judge further observed that a supervisor need not be a manager or an

administrator and a supervisor can be a workman so long as he did not exceed the monetary limitation indicated in

the section and a supervisor irrespective of his salary is not a workman who has to discharge function mainly of

managerial nature by reasons of the duties attached to his office or of the powers vested in him. The aforesaid

decision of the Calcutta High Court was noted with approval by this Court in National Engineering Industries

Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageria [1988 Supp SCC 82 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 428 : AIR 1988 SC 329] .

11. It may be noted in this connection that in view of the amendment of Section 2(s) enlarging the ambit of the

classification of various types of workmen except managerial force, entire labour force has been included within

the definition of workman under Section 2(s) as has been indicated by this Court in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh

Chandra [(1983) 4 SCC 214 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 510 : (1983) 3 SCR 799] . But if the principal function is of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3853

supervisory nature, the employee concerned will not be workman only if he draws a particular quantum of salary

at the relevant time as indicated in Section 2(s). In the instant case, it, however, appears to us that Shri Maini as

Manager/In-charge of the shop was made responsible and liable to make good such amount of credit whether such

sale on credit had been made by him or by any other member of the staff in employment under him with or without

his knowledge. Under the terms and conditions of service, he was asked to take charge of the shop to which his

service was transferred. Mr Maini, under the terms and conditions of service, was required to be held responsible

and liable for any loss suffered by the Company due to deterioration of the quality of the stock or any part thereof

and loss of any of the other articles lying in the shop caused by reason of any act of negligence and/or omission to

take any precaution by the employees. Mr Maini was also required to notify the Company by trunk call and/or

telegram not later than three hours after the discovery in the said shop of any fire, theft, burglary, loot or arson.

He was required to investigate into the matter immediately and get the cause and amount of loss established by

local authorities. Mr Maini as in-charge of the shop was required to keep and maintain proper accounts as

approved by the Company indicating the exact amount to be paid from the receipts from the respective staff. Under

Clause XIII of the terms and conditions of the service, Mr Maini would remain fully responsible to the Company

for damages or loss caused by acts or commission of the loss of the employees of the shop. Under Clause XV of the

terms and conditions of service, the shop in-charge was required to keep himself fully conversant with all the

regulations in force which may come into force from time to time with regard to Octroi, Sales Tax and Shops and

Commercial Establishments Act and/or any other local regulation applicable to the shop. Clause XXI indicates

that non-compliance with any of the local or State Acts or Central Acts would be viewed seriously and Manager

would be held responsible for any fine/penalty imposed and/or prosecution launched against the Company. It also

appears that in the event of a salesman being absent, the shop in-charge is empowered to appoint temporary helper

for the said period to work as acting salesman. Similarly, in the event of helper being absent, the shop manager is

also empowered to appoint part-time sweeper and to entrust the work of a helper to a sweeper. Such functions, in

our view, appear to be administrative and managerial. By virtue of his being in-charge of the shop, he was the

principal officer-in-charge of the management of the shop. We therefore find justification in the finding of the

High Court that the principal function of the appellant was of administrative and managerial nature. It is true that

he himself was also required to do some works of clerical nature but it appears to us that by and large Shri Maini

being in-charge of the management of the shop had been principally discharging the administrative and

managerial work. A manager or an administrative officer is generally invested with the power of supervision in

contradistinction to the stereotype work of a clerk. This Court in Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Panna Lal Gupta [(1961) 1

LLJ 18 : AIR 1967 SC 428] has indicated that a manager or administrator generally occupies a position of

command or decision and is authorised to act in certain matters within the limits of his authority without the

sanction of his superior. In the instant case within the authority indicated in the terms and conditions of his

service, Shri Maini was authorised to take decisions in the matter of temporary appointments and in taking all

reasonable steps incidental to the proper running of the shop. Precisely for the said reason, Shri Maini had signed

the statutory forms as an employer. It should be borne in mind that an employee discharging managerial duties

and functions may not, as a matter of course, be invested with the power of appointment and discharge of other

employees. It is not unlikely that in a big set-up such power is not invested to a local manager but such power is

given to some superior officers also in the management cadre at divisional or regional level. The unit in a local

shop may not be large but management of such small unit may fulfil the requirements and incidences of

managerial functions. On a close scrutiny of the nature of duties and functions of the Shop Manager with

reference to the admitted terms and conditions of service of Shri Maini, it appears to us that the High Court was

justified in holding that the appellant was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the

aforesaid facts, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether or not domestic enquiry had been properly

conducted or the Enquiring Officer had acted with bias. It is also not necessary to decide for the purpose of the

disposal of the appeal as to whether or not the Company was entitled to lead fresh evidence in support of the

domestic enquiry before the Labour Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without, however, any order as to

cost.‖

In another case of Vandana Joshi vs. Standard Charter Bank MANU/MH/1391/2010, decided by Hon‘ble

High Court of Bombay it has been laid down that the question as to whether the employee is a applicant or not must

be decided with reference to the dominant nature of the duties and responsibilities performed by employee.

In the case of Arkal Govind Rao vs. Ciba Geigy of India, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 371, it was held that the

person concerned would not cease to be a applicant if he performs some supervisory duty but he must be a person

engaged in supervisory duty and the test to be employed is what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of

duties for which the person whose status is under inquiry was employed.

Now analyzing the evidence in the case in hand on the basis of tests laid down in the aforesaid Judgments,

it comes out that the role and duties of the Applicant/Petitioner have been defined in his letter of Appointment and

have been mentioned above. In his affidavit as his examination in chief that he was assigned the work of collecting

3854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

documents pertaining to loan and others services from the customers in order to procure business for Bank. There was

no employee working under him his job was sourcing and handling business, providing service queries to customers,

term loan installment collection, customer engagement visits, forwarding of documents collected from customers to

the Bank and also looking into the complaint of the customers and forwarding the same to the Bank Officers for

redressal. He further stated that he was not assigned any managerial or supervisory. There is nothing in his cross

examination on this point. The management witness Kapil Dev Singh, though has reiterated the case of management

on this point but has stated in his cross-examination that the main work of the applicant was to procure business for

Bank, he did not have any authority to grant leave or to sanction loan. No employee reported him about his work. This

witness further states in his cross examination that the initial asset verification was done by an independent agency

engaged by Bank under supervision of the applicant.

From the above statements, it is established that the applicant did not work in any supervisory or managerial

capacity. Hence, in the light of the proposition of law as discussed above, the applicant is held to be a workman

as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Act and the case of the Management that applicant is not a workman under Section

2(s) of the act is held not proved.

Issue no.-1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2 & 3

Since, these two issues are inter-related, they are being taken together.

As the letter dated 07.08.2013 by which the services of the applicant was terminated speaks his services were

terminated in terms of the contract of employment dated 09.09.2011 as the Bank had lost confidence in him.

In the case Deepti Prakash Banarjee vs. S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, reported in (1999)

3 SCC 60, it has been laid down that when the termination order used the word loss of confidence, the said order will

be held to contain stigma and therefore punitive. Thus, the termination of the applicant in the case in hand is also held

to be stigmatic.

Case of the management on this issue is that certain complaints were made by customers leveling allegations

of coercion and demand of illegal money by the applicant. The applicant denied the allegations. This is also in

evidence that the complainants withdrew their complaints. There was no inquiry conducted by management with

regards to these complaints. With regards to other complaint that the applicant received Rs. 50,000/- from a customer

of Bank in his account, the applicant is put a case that the customer was is personal friend and he took the amount is

as temporary loan in emergency. He has explained these circumstances in his explanation dated 14.06.2023 There is

nothing to show that the applicant, photocopy filed by management itself which are Exb. M/3, M/4 & M/5. In these

circumstances, when the allegations were denied /explained, it was incumbent on management to conduct an inquiry

regarding the truth of the allegations. This was not done by the management.

Article 311 of Constitution of India is being reproduced as follows :-

Article 311, Constitution of India 1950

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a

State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to

that by which he was appointed.

⁠(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given

a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him:

Provided that this clause shall not apply—

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to

his conviction on a criminal charge;

(b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that

for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person

an opportunity of showing cause; or

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3855

(c) where the President or Governor or Rajpramukh, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of

the security of the State it is not expedient to give to that person such an opportunity.

In the case of Rahul Tripathi vs. Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, reported in (2001) 3 MPLJ 616, Hon‘ble

High Court of M.P. has after referring the various decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court, has held that when the

termination is stigmatic and punitive, and it is not termination simplicitor it could be done only after inquiry.

Hence, in the light of above discussion and findings, the termination of services of the applicant Vikas

Gupta is held to be bad in law.

Issue No.-2 & 3 are answered accordingly.

Issue No.-4

Learned Counsel for the workman has referred to following decision of Hon‘ble the Apex Court, the relevant

paragraphs are being reproduced as follows:-

Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC

(L&S) 184 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 719 at page 354

36. We may now deal with the judgment in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1

SCC (L&S) 651] in detail. The facts of that case were that the respondent was dismissed from service on

the basis of inquiry conducted by the competent authority. The Labour Court held that the inquiry was not

fair and proper and permitted the parties to adduce evidence on the charges levelled against the

respondent. After considering the evidence, the Labour Court gave benefit of doubt to the respondent and

substituted the punishment of dismissal from service with that of stoppage of increments for two years. On

an application filed by the respondent, the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to

reinstatement with full back wages for the period of unemployment. The learned Single Judge dismissed

the writ petition and the Division Bench declined to interfere by observing that the employer had wilfully

violated the order of the Labour Court. On an application made by the respondent under Section 6(6) of

the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court amended the award. This Court upheld the

power of the Labour Court to amend the award but did not approve the award of full back wages.

37. After noticing several precedents to which reference has been made hereinabove, the two-Judge Bench

observed : (J.K. Synthetics case [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] , SCC pp. 448-50, paras 17-

21)

―17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, ‗continuity of service‘ and

‗consequential benefits‘ should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several

promotions as a ‗consequential benefit‘ to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does

not have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of

promotional posts, is seldom visualised while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever

courts or tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the facts and

circumstances to decide whether ‗continuity of service‘ and/or ‗consequential benefits‘ should also be

directed. …

18.

Coming back to back wages, even if the court finds it necessary to award back wages, the

question will be whether back wages should be awarded fully or only partially (and if so the percentage).

That depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income received by the employee during

the relevant period on account of alternative employment or business is a relevant factor to be taken note

of while awarding back wages, in addition to the several factors mentioned in Rudhan Singh [Haryana

Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 716] and Uday Narain Pandey [U.P.

State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 250] .

Therefore, it is necessary for the employee to plead that he was not gainfully employed from the date of

his termination. While an employee cannot be asked to prove the negative, he has to at least assert on oath

that he was neither employed nor engaged in any gainful business or venture and that he did not have any

income. Then the burden will shift to the employer. But there is, however, no obligation on the terminated

employee to search for or secure alternative employment. Be that as it may.

3856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

But the cases referred to above, where back wages were awarded, related to

termination/retrenchment which were held to be illegal and invalid for non-compliance with statutory

requirements or related to cases where the Court found that the termination was motivated or amounted to

victimisation. The decisions relating to back wages payable on illegal retrenchment or termination may

have no application to the case like the present one, where the termination (dismissal or removal or

compulsory retirement) is by way of punishment for misconduct in a departmental enquiry, and the court

confirms the finding regarding misconduct, but only interferes with the punishment being of the view that

it is excessive, and awards a lesser punishment, resulting in the reinstatement of employee. Where the

power under Article 226 or Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (or any other similar provision) is

exercised by any court to interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is excessive and the

employee deserves a lesser punishment, and a consequential direction is issued for reinstatement, the

court is not holding that the employer was in the wrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid. The

court is merely exercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is exercised, the

dismissal is valid and in force. When the punishment is reduced by a court as being excessive, there can

be either a direction for reinstatement or a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if

reinstatement is directed, it can be effective either prospectively from the date of such substitution of

punishment (in which event, there is no continuity of service) or retrospectively, from the date on which

the penalty of termination was imposed (in which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to

continuity of service). What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and

only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or

void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically

with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of

imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential

benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the

misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition

of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may

amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the

misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where

continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not

for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc.

20.

But there are two exceptions. The first is where the court sets aside the termination as a

consequence of employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct. Second is where

the court reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty

misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimise him, and the disproportionately

excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or intention. In such cases, the principles relating to back

wages, etc. will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination.

21.

In this case, the Labour Court found that a charge against the employee in respect of a serious

misconduct was proved. It, however, felt that the punishment of dismissal was not warranted and

therefore, imposed a lesser punishment of withholding the two annual increments. In such circumstances,

award of back wages was neither automatic nor consequential. In fact, back wages was not warranted at

all.‖

38. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:

38.1.

In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back

wages is the normal rule.

38.2.

The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the

adjudicating authority or the court may take into consideration the length of service of the

employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the

financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.

38.3.

Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of

getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating

authority or the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser

wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead

cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3857

to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that

the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment

about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore,

once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and

prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar

emoluments.

38.4.

The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the

employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any,

but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the

discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the

employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false

charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.

38.5.

The cases in which the competent court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross

violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the

employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of

full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of

the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there is a

possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back

wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases

of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the

employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by

relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.

38.6.

In a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with the award of the primary

adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalisation of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in

majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is

the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised.

It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because

there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of

reinstatement. The courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an

advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for

prolonging the agony of the sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who can ill-afford the luxury of

spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to

adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees [Hindustan Tin Works (P)

Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] .

38.7.

The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC

(L&S) 651] that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is

contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three-Judge Benches [Hindustan Tin Works (P)

Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] , [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] referred to hereinabove

and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of

reinstatement of an employee/workman.

The applicant has alleged that he has not been gainfully employed anywhere after termination of his services.

He has corroborated his this allegation in affidavit filed by him as his examination in chief. He has not been cross

examined by management on this point. There is no evidence by management to rebut this allegation, hence the

allegation of the applicant that he has not been in any gainful employment since the date of his termination from

service is held proved, the applicant does not deserve to any back wages.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, and in the light of findings

recorded above as well the settled proposition of law laid down as above, the reinstatement of the workman

with 50% wages payable to him within 30 days from the date of the publication of the Award, failing which

interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of Award till payment. and other in service as well post retiral

benefits will meet the ends of justice to which the workman is held entitled.

Issue no.-4 is answered accordingly.

Accordingly, the Reference and Petition are answered as follows :-

3858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Holding the action of management of ICICI Bank in terminating the services of the applicant Vikas

Gupta vide order dated 07.08.2013 against law and unjust, the workman is held entitled to be reinstated from

the date of termination of his services with 50% back wages payable to him within 30 days from the date of the

publication of the Award, failing which interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of Award till payment and

all in service as well post retiral benefits.

No order as to cost.

DATE:-07/05/2025 P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 943.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार

आई.ए.एस.आर.आई.;कम्ृलीट ऑदफस सोल्यूिन (सी.ओ.एस.) के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री लक्ष्मण प्रसाद के

डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या

125/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-120-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 943.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 125/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to I.A.S.R.I.; Complete Office Solution (COS) and, Sh. Laxman Prasad which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 30.04.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-120-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 125/2022

Sh. Laxman Prasad, S/o Sh. Bhagwan Das,

R/o- 19-WZ, 104 Block-WZ, Dasghara Village, IARI,

Delhi-110012.

Through-Sh. Ram Ji Singh Advocate,

Chamber no. F-609, Karkardooma Court,

Delhi-110032.

VERSUS

1. I.A.S.R.I,

Campus Pusa, New Delhi-110012.

2. Complete Office Solution (COS),

Head Office: 01/56-D, 01^st Floor, Office No. 105,

Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.

AWARD

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3859

This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an Act) filed by

the claimant.

Claimant in his claim statement has stated that he was working with the management-1 through M-2 who is a

contractor since 2016 as a Guard and his last drawn salary was Rs. 16,957/-. He did his work well and has not given

any chance of making any complaint to the management nor was he charged while he was in service. Since beginning

management has not been providing any legal facility i.e. appointment letter, Annual and casual leave money and ESI

etc. When the workman demanded for said legal benefits, management had terminated his services illegally on

22.06.2021 without giving any reason and prior notice. Management had clearly refused to pay the earned salary and

other types of statutory dues, which is completely illegal. Thereafter, he had gone to the conciliation officer, but it

was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages.

He is jobless since the date of his termination.

M-1 has filed its WS denying the averment made in the claim statement of the claimant. He also submitted

that claim of the claimant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as he was never employed of M-1, he was the

employee of M-2.

M-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.02.2023.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed on 18.03.2024 i.e.-

(i)

Whether the workman is terminated illegally by the management. (OPW)

(ii) Relief, if any.

Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. However, neither the workman nor his AR has been

appearing since long to substantiate his claim.

In these circumstances, when the claimant is interested in perusing his case, this tribunal has no option but to

dismiss his claim. Hence, his claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 23.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 944.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार जनदेिक,

भारतीय सुदूर संवेदन संस्ट्थान; सजचव, उज्ज्वल श्रम संजवदा सहकारी सजमजत जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री रॉडट

जॉन के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या

176/2020) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-121-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 944.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 176/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to The Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing; The Secretary, Ujjawal Labour Contract Co-Operative

Society Ltd., and, Sh. Robert John which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-121-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

3860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 176/2020

Sh. Robert John, S/o Sh. Michal John,

Qr. No.- 18, NIVH, 116, Rajpur Road,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001.

Versus

3. The Director,

Indian Institute of Remote Sensing,

4, Kalidas Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001.

4. The Secretary,

Ujjawal Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd.,

50/100, Krishan Nagar, Near Hotel Lalit Palace,

Dehradun, Uttarakhand-248001.

Award

The appropriate Government has sent the reference referred dated 08.10.2020 to this tribunal for adjudication in

the following words:

―Whether the termination of the service of Shri Robert John S/o Shri Michal John, who was engaged in Indian

Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun from 2008 to 2013 and thereafter by M/s Ujjawal Labour Contract Co-

operative Society Ltd., Dehradun, Contractor of IIRS, for the period October, 2013 to December, 2019 is proper

and justified.

If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?‖

After receiving the said reference, notice was issued to both the parties. Both the parties have appeared.

Claimant had stated in the claim statement that he was working as Gym Coach or Gym Instructor in the gymnasium

of Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, (Indian Space Research Organization, Department of Space Government of

India) on contract basis from 01.10.2008 through management-2 (contractor). He was assigned major work during the

job period and his work performance is quite professional and satisfactory. He was paid Rs. 5,000/- on starting by the

management-1 and also given assurance a letter dated 14.05.2012 to increase in the Gym Instructor emoluments. He

did his duty with diligently and honestly and did not give any chance to the management for any complaint. He had

raised the demand of PF & ESI and other remuneration for the period 2008 to 2013 and had been demanding the

increase in his salary in front of CMD of the management no. 1. Thereafter, he was illegally terminated by the

management on 31.12.2019 without assigning any reason or without issuing any notice. He had filed an application

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dehradun on dated 14.01.2020 against the respondent-1, but, it has

resulted into failure. Hence, he has filed the present claim.

Management-1 had filed its WS denying the averment made in the claimant‘s claim. He also submitted that

workman was absconding from his work from 12.12.2019, and since then he has not joined his services and further

the workman instead of joining his duty with the management, filed a resignation letter. He submitted that claim of

the claimant is being devoid of merits is not maintainable under law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Management-2 was already proceeded ex-parte on 08.12.2022.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed on 17.03.2023 i.e.-

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable?

2. Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between the claimant and the management no. 1?

3. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management no. 1?

4. Whether the contract between the management no. 1 and 2 was sham?

5. To what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date?

Now, the matter is listed for reply and consideration of the application filed by M-1 under order 06 rule 17 for

amendment in written statement. However, no one is appearing on behalf of the claimant. On the last date of hearing,

upon being informed telephonically, AR for the claimant did not give any satisfactory reason for his absence.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3861

Additionally a cost of Rs. 1,000/- was also imposed upon the workman for his non-appearance on the subsequent

dates, but still he is not appearing.

In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested to peruse his case. His claim stands dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required

under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated: 05.03.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 945.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार के इंजडया

टूररज्म डेवलृमेंट कारृोरेिन(आईटीडीसी); अिोक होटल; उत्तराखंड ृूव सजनक कल्याण जनगम जलजमटेड (यूृीएनएल) के प्रडंधतंत्र के

संडद्ध जनयोजकों और आईडी नंडर 102/2020- श्री. मुकेि प्रसाद स्या; आईडी नंडर 103/2020- श्री. सुखडीर शसह के डीच अनुडंध

में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या 102 & 103/2020) को जजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-122-आईआर(डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 945.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 102 & 103/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC); The Ashoka Hotel, Uttarakhand

Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. (UPNL) and, ID No. 102/2020- Sh. Mukesh Prasad Satya; ID No. 103/2020- Sh.

Sukhbir Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.04.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-122-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 102/2020

Sh. Mukesh Prasad Satya, S/o Late Sh. Nasib Lal,

Through- Delhi Karamchari Sangh, W-4, Infront of Kalkaji Bus Depot, Govindpuri, New Delhi-110019.

ID No. 103/2020

Sh. Sukhbir Singh, S/o Sh. Nand Lal,

Through- Delhi Karamchari Sangh, W-4, Infront of Kalkaji Bus Depot, Govindpuri, New Delhi-110019.

Versus

The Chairman & Managing Director of,

India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC),

Scope Complex, Core-6, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

The Ashoka Hotel,

Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021.

Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. (UPNL)

Project Office-301-C, 3^rd Floor, Nehru Complex,

Pandav Nagar, New Delhi-110092.

3862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these two applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act

(herein after referred as an Act) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of having the

common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for deciding these cases.

2. Claimants in their claim statements had stated that they were working with the management-1 & 2 through

contractor at the post of Security Guard since January, 2010 and November, 2010 at the last drawn salary Rs. 17,500/-

per month respectively. They were working under the supervision and control of M-1 & 2. The M-1 & 2 is the

Principle employer of M-3. The M-1 & 2 had given contract of manpower to M-3. During the course of their

employment, M-2 had appointed different contractor. M-2 had engaged the management-3 as contractor. The

management-2 used to take work to workman through M-3. They used to work sincerely, honestly and their service

record was well satisfactory and they did not give any chance of complaint to the managements. Managements did not

issue any appointment letter, attendance card, leave book, pay slip, HRA, etc. to them. They were also deprived from

their legal benefits i.e. off, leaves, bonus, overtime by the managements. They demanded the same to the

managements to provide the above said legal facilities, but the managements did not provide the same and started

harassing and threatening them to terminate their services. Thereafter, the services of workmen were terminated by

the managements on 03.10.2017 respectively without paying the earned wages for the month of Oct, 2017, and

without issuing any notice. They have filed the written complaint before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Central

Jeewan Deep Building, New Delhi. Workmen has sent the demand notice to the managements and demanded for

reinstatement with full back wages, but the managements have neither replied to the said demand notice of the

workmen despite receiving the same nor have reinstated the workmen. Thereafter, the workmen initiated the

conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, Central Government, Jeewan Deep Building, New Delhi, but

it was resulted into failure. Hence, they have filed their present claims with the prayer that they be reinstated in

services with full back wages.

Written statement has been filed by the M-1 & 2 stating that claims of the claimants are not maintainable as

there has never been relationship of employee and employer between the claimants and the M-1 & 2. He submits that

claims of the claimants are liable to be dismissed.

Management-3 in its WS has stated that claimants were the civilians and were being employed by them

under the contract of service, but after completing three months from where management has joined the contract, the

claimants completed their period under the contract of services as a Civilian as mentioned in clause 5 of the

agreement made with ITDC. He further stated that he was legally bound to deploy only employee ESM/EX CAPF.

On dated 18.10.2017 management-3 issued a notice that the claimants have completed the time mentioned as per the

contract clause after 15 days of issuing notice from management no. 3 asked the claimants to discontinue their

services. Therefore, there is no more privity of contract left between management-3 and the claimants, and

accordingly, their claims under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not legally maintainable and is liable to be

rejected.

Claimants were required to file their rejoinder, however, they had not appeared for the last several dates,

therefore, their right to file the rejoinder was closed. Now, these matters are listed for framing of issues, but, still these

workmen have not appearing despite providing a number of opportunities.

In these circumstances, when the claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their claim, it

appears that they are not interested in pursuing their case. This tribunal has no option except to pass the no disputant

award. No dispute award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated: 10.03.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 946.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार के इंजडया

संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जडजेन्र के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली

ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या 16/2021) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-123-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3863

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 946.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC); The Ashoka Hotel, Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan

Nigam Ltd. (UPNL) and Sh. Bijendra which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 30.04.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-123-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 16/2021

Sh. Bijender, S/o Sh. Hari Singh,

Through- Delhi Karamchari Sangh, W-4, Infront of Kalkaji Bus Depot, Govindpuri, New Delhi-110019.

Versus

The Chairman & Managing Director of,

India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC),

Scope Complex, Core-6, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

The Ashoka Hotel,

Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021.

Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd. (UPNL)

Project Office-301-C, 3^rd Floor, Nehru Complex,

Pandav Nagar, New Delhi-110092.

AWARD

This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refered as an ‗Act‘) filed by

the claimant. Claimant in his claim statement had stated that he was working with the management-1 & 2 through

contractor at the post of Security Guard since January, 2009 at the last drawn salary Rs. 17,500/- per month. He was

working under the supervision and control of M-1 & 2. The M-1 & 2 is the Principle employer of M-3. The M-1 & 2

had given contract of manpower to M-3. During the course of his employment, M-2 had appointed different

contractor. M-2 had engaged the management-3 as contractor. The management-2 used to take work to workman

through M-3. He used to work sincerely, honestly and his service record was well satisfactory and he did not give any

chance of complaint to the managements. Managements did not issue any appointment letter, attendance card, leave

book, pay slip, HRA, etc. to him. He was also deprived from legal benefits i.e. weekly off, leaves, bonus, overtime by

the managements. He demanded the same to the managements to provide the above said legal facilities, but the

managements did not provide the same and started harassing and threatening him to terminate his services. Thereafter,

the service of workman was terminated by the managements on 30.10.2017 without paying the earned wages for the

month of Oct, 2017, and without issuing any notice. They have filed the written complaint before the Deputy Labour

Commissioner, Central Jeewan Deep Building, New Delhi. Workmen has sent the demand notice to the managements

and demanded for reinstatement with full back wages, but the managements have neither replied to the said demand

notice of the workmen despite receiving the same nor have reinstated the workmen. Thereafter, the workmen initiated

the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, Central Government, Jeewan Deep Building, New Delhi,

but it was resulted into failure. Hence, they have filed their present claims with the prayer that they be reinstated in

services with full back wages.

Management-1 & 2 was proceeded ex-parte on 31.10.2022. Management-3 in its WS has stated that

claimant was never employed by the management-3 under any contract of service, but he was an employee of

an independent contractor of the management no. 1 & 2, which used to supervise and control the working of the

claimant and pay his wages. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between management no. 3 and the

claimant. He further submitted that claim of the claimant is not legally maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed on 06.02.2023 i.e.

3864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between the claimant and the management no. 3?

2. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management.

3. To what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date?

The matter is listed for workman evidence as well as filing of reply of application filed by the

management-3. Workman is not appearing since long to substantiate his claim, inspite of providing a number of

opportunities.

In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, it

appears that he is not interested to pursue his case. His claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A

copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID

act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated: 24.03.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 947.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार के

ददल्ली मेरो रेल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; वी-इंस्ट्ृायर फजजसजलटी मजनेजमेंट के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कृष्ण कुमार

गुप्ता के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभ

सं्‍या 22/2021) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-124-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 947.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.; V-Inspire Facility Mgt. and, Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.04.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-124-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 22/2021

Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta,

C/o Smt. Resham (Jr. Asst.) CB-370,

Manapppuram Finance Ltd. Nariana Ring Road, New Delhi-110028.

Versus

The Chairman,

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.,

Metro Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, A-Wing, Fire Bridge Lane,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

V-Inspire Facility Mgt.

Tower A, Ansal Corporation Plaza, 309 to 3014,

2^nd Floor, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon-122017.

AWARD

This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter refered as an ‗Act‘) filed

by the claimant. Claimant in his claim statement had stated that he was appointed as ―House Keeping Boy‖ on 14^th

March 2018. The employ code of the workman was Emp. No. H5225 and he joined the management on the wages of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3865

Rs. 365/- per day. The last wages of the workman was Rs. 12,506/- per month. He always performed his duties with

hard work and due diligence and to the entire satisfaction of the managements and he never gave a single chance of

any type of complaint to the managements during his service period. The work done by the workman was of

permanent nature, but the managements termed the same daily wager or contractual employee. He was deprived from

legal benefits and was never issued any appointment letter to him despite of his repeated request. On 28.09.2020,

when the workman reported duty, it was informed by the management that his services is not required from

29.09.2020 and he need not to come on his duties from 29.09.2020, thus the services of the workman was terminated

illegally without assigning any reason, without issuing any show cause notice or without conducting any domestic

enquiry. He has worked more than 240 days in every year and in the year proceeding to his termination. After

termination of services, the workman visited the office of the management time and again for his reinstatement, but

all in vain. Finding no alternative, the workman filed a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jeevan

Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001 and the matter was referred for conciliation. M-2 appeared through

Video Conferencing but due to the rigid attitude of the managements the conciliation proceeding was resulted into

failure. Hence, He filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated in services with full back wages.

Management-1 in its WS has stated there is no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and

M-1. He further submitted that claim of the claimant is not legally maintainable and liable to be dismissed. M-2 was

already proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.11.2022.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed on 01.03.2023 i.e.

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable?

2. Whether they exists employer and employee relationship between the M-1 and the claimant?

3. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the managements?

4. To what relief to workmen is entitled to, from whom, and from which date?

The matter is listed for examination in chief and cross-examination of the workman. Workman has not been

appearing since long to substantiate his claim, inspite of providing a number of opportunities.

In these circumstances, when the claimant has not been appearing since long to substantiate his claim, it

appears that he is not interested to pursue his case. His claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy

of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947.

File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated: 27.03.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 948.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार के

ृूवी ददल्ली नगर जनगम, ददल्ली के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री डाल दकिन एवं 03 अन्य के डीच अनुडंध में

जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या ID No. 305/2021

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-125-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 948.—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. 305/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi and, Sh. Bal Kishan & 03 Others which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-125-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

3866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 305/2021

(Reference No. L-42011/142/2021)

Sh. Bal Kishan & 03 Others,

Through-The General Secretary, Municipal Employees Union ,

Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

VERSUS

The Commissioner,

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Udyog Sadan, 2^nd Floor, Plot No. 419,

Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092.

AWARD

The appropriate Government has sent the reference refered dated 30.11.2021 to this tribunal for

adjudication in the following words:

―Whether demand of Sh. Bal Kishan S/o Sh. Babu Lal & 3 others through

General Secretary, Municipal Employees Union vide letter dated 01.06.2019 for

payment of all arrears of difference of salary on the principle of ―Equal Pay for

Equal Work‖ from their initial date of joining to these workers with all

consequential benefits is proper, legal and justified? If yes, then for what relief

these workers are entitled to and what other directions, if any, are necessary in the

matter?‖

2. After receiving the reference workmen had filed the claim statement. W.S had been filed by the

respondent. Workmen were required to file the rejoinder.

3. AR for the claimants has filed an application for passing no dispute award in the present case. In the

application, AR for the workmen submitted that one of the workmen passed away and his legal heirs have not

approached the authorized representatives of the workmen. She further submitted that the workmen were

contacted by the AR multiple times, they communicated that they are unable to take the dispute forward.

4. In view of the AR for the claimant‘s submission, the present claim has resulted in No Dispute Award.

Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as

required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 09.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 949.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार के

मेसस भारती एयरटेल जलजमटेड के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री चंदन शसह अजधकारी के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या ID No. 147/2020 को जजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-126-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3867

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 949.—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. 147/2020) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Sh. Chandan Singh Adhikari which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-126-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 147/2020

(Reference No. L-42011/102/2020)

Sh. Chandan Singh Adhikari,

Through- General Mazdoor Trade Union,

S-195/076, Shiv Mandir, In Front of Old Labour Office,

Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

VERSUS

M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.

A-45, 1^st Floor, Mohan Co-Operative

Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110044.

AWARD

The appropriate Government has sent the reference refered dated 21.09.2020 to this tribunal for

adjudication in the following words:

―Whether the service of the worker Sh. Chandan Singh Adhikari represented through

General Mazdoor Trade Union against the management of M/s. Telesonic Network Pvt. Ltd.

has been terminated by the management under the garb of transfer letter dated 04.09.2018

and if so, to what relief is Sh. Chandan Singh Adhikari entitled and what directions are

necessary in this regard?‖

After receiving the reference workman had filed his claim statement. W.S had been filed by the

respondent and denied the averment made in his claim statement.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed vide order dated 01.02.2023 i.e.-

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management on the grab of

transfer from one place to another.

3. To what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date.

4. In the meanwhile, M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. had moved an application under order 22 rule 10 of the CPC on

12.12.2023 for substituting itself in place of M/s Telesonic Networks Pvt. Ltd. because it had acquired

the management. That application was allowed. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. was substituted in place of M/s

Telesonic Networks Pvt. Ltd.

5. Now, the matter is listed for workman evidence. Workman is required to file his affidavit of evidence,

but, neither the workman nor his AR is appearing from several dates to substantiate his claim.

6. In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in pursuing his case, this tribunal has no other

option but to dismiss his claim. Hence, his claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy

3868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID

act 1947. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 09.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 950.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार के

राष्ट्रीय भवन जनमा ण जनगम जलजमटेड; िाृूरजी ृालोनजी एंड कंृनी प्रा. जलजमटेड; आर.जे. प्रोजेक्ट्स प्रा. जलजमटेड के

प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और आई.डी. सं्‍या 300/2022 श्री डृज लाल, आई.डी. सं्‍या 301/2022-श्री धमेन्र,

आई.डी. सं्‍या 303/2022-श्री धनवीर यादव, आई.डी. सं्‍या 303/2022-श्री कौिलेन्र कुमार, आई.डी. सं्‍या

304/2022-श्री मुकेन्र, आई.डी. सं्‍या 305/2022-श्री नन्द लाल, आई.डी. सं्‍या 306/2022-श्री प्रदीृ, आई.डी. सं्‍या

306/2022-श्री राम प्रकाि यादव, आई.डी. सं्‍या 308/2022-श्री धनंजय, आई.डी. सं्‍या 309/2022-श्री िजलेन्र, के

आई.डी. सं्‍या 300/2022 श्री डृज लाल, आई.डी. सं्‍या 301/2022-श्री धमेन्र, आई.डी. सं्‍या 303/2022-श्री धनवीर

यादव, आई.डी. सं्‍या 303/2022-श्री कौिलेन्र कुमार, आई.डी. सं्‍या 304/2022-श्री मुकेन्र, आई.डी. सं्‍या

305/2022-श्री नन्द लाल, आई.डी. सं्‍या 306/2022-श्री प्रदीृ, आई.डी. सं्‍या 306/2022-श्री राम प्रकाि यादव,

आई.डी. सं्‍या 308/2022-श्री धनंजय, आई.डी. सं्‍या 309/2022-श्री िजलेन्र) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया

हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-127-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 950.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. NO. 300/2022 Shri Brij Lal, I.D. NO. 301/2022-Shri

Dharmender, I.D. NO. 303/2022-Shri Dhanveer Yadav, I.D. NO. 303/2022-Shri Kaushlendra Kumar, I.D. NO.

304/2022-Shri Mukendra, I.D. NO. 305/2022-Shri Nand Lal, I.D. NO. 306/2022-Shri Pradeep, I.D. NO.

306/2022-Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, I.D. NO. 308/2022-Shri Dhananjay, I.D. NO. 309/2022-Shri Shailendra,) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.;

Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd.; R.J. Projects Pvt. Ltd., and I.D. NO. 300/2022 Shri Brij Lal, I.D. NO.

301/2022-Shri Dharmender, I.D. NO. 303/2022-Shri Dhanveer Yadav, I.D. NO. 303/2022-Shri Kaushlendra

Kumar, I.D. NO. 304/2022-Shri Mukendra, I.D. NO. 305/2022-Shri Nand Lal, I.D. NO. 306/2022-Shri Pradeep,

I.D. NO. 306/2022-Shri Ram Prakash Yadav, I.D. NO. 308/2022-Shri Dhananjay, I.D. NO. 309/2022-Shri

Shailendra, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-127-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR

COURT-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 300/2022

Sh. Brij Lal, S/o Sh. Dih Mehta,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 301/2022

Sh. Dharmender, S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Yadav,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3869

I.D. NO. 302/2022

Sh. Dhanveer Yadav, S/o Sh. Jangi Lal Yadav,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 303/2022

Sh. Kaushlendra Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Yadav,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 304/2022

Sh. Mukendra, S/o Sh. Raj Pati Mahato Yadav,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 305/2022

Sh. Nand Lal, S/o Sh. Rambachan Mali,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 306/2022

Sh. Pradeep,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 307/2022

Sh. Ram Prakash Yadav, S/o Sh. Jangi Lal Yadav,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 308/2022

Sh. Dhananjay, S/o Sh. Lal Babu,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

I.D. NO. 309/2022

Sh. Shailendra, S/o Sh. Surya Narayan Yadav,

Through-Authorised Representative- Nitika Bhola,

B-40, 1^st Floor, MCD Flats, Boulvard Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

VERSUS

1. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.,

Head Office: NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,

07^th Floor, Kanchanjunga Building,

18, Barahkhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

3. R.J. Projects Pvt. Ltd.,

C-18, Sector-105, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.

3870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these ten applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act (here in after referred as an ‗Act‘) filed by the different claimants against the same

respondents, because of having the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are

taken together for their illegal termination. Claims of the workmen are that they have been serving

the management-1 through management-2 & 3. Name and particular of their employment are given

below-

List of Workmen

Sr.

Name

Post

Dates of

Joining

Dates of

Termination

Last drawn

Salary

Brij Lal

Helper

18.11.2020

Nov, 2021

12,400/-

Dharmender

Helper

01.02.2021

Nov, 2021

12,400/-

Dhanveer Yadav

Fitter

01.02.2021

Nov, 2021

18,600/-

Kaushlendra Kumar

Fitter

01.02.2021

Nov, 2021

18,600/-

Mukendra

Fitter

18.11.2020

Nov, 2021

18,600/-

Nand Lal

Fitter

01.05.2021

Nov, 2021

18,600/-

Pradeep

Rigor

18.11.2020

Nov, 2021

15,500/-

Ram Prakash Yadav

Fitter

01.02.2021

Nov, 2021

18,600/-

Dhananjay

Fitter

01.05.2021

Nov, 2021

18,600/-

Shailender

Helper

01.02.2021

Nov, 2021

12,400/-

They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records are clean

and they have not given any complaint so far. During the services, management never provided any

EL, CL, P.F and other benefits and overtime. Workmen many times requested to provide above said

facilities and over time but the management never paid heed towards workmen and management

stopped giving the earned wages to the workmen from March, 2021. Management took time in the

pretext that there are some financial crises and they will give their entire dues of salary as soon as

possible but the management never paid their due salary. When they demanded their earned wages

from 01.03.2021 to 01.09.2021 then the management got annoyed and terminated their service on

the above said dates without giving any reason. Workmen many times approached the management

to reinstate their services, pay his earned wages and over time but the management never respond to

the workmen. At the time of termination of services no seniority list was displayed, no notice was

given, no notice pay was either offered or paid no services compensation was either offer & paid to

the workmen. The impugned termination of services is violation of Section 25 (f), (g), & (h) of the

Act. The demand notice was served upon to the managements, but no reply was received and it was

presumed that the demand has been rejected. They had gone to the conciliation officer, but, no

results were yielded. Hence, they have filed the present claims.

W.S has been filed by the respondent-1, stating that workmen were the employee of M-2 & 3.

Therefore, the present claims are not maintainable against the M-1 and are liable to be dismissed.

Management-2 and Management-3 have also filed their respective WS, denying the averment

made in the statement of claims of the claimants. They also submitted that their claims are liable to

be dismissed.

After completion of the pleadings, following identical issues in all cases have been framed vide

order dated 28.01.2025 i.e.-

1. Whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer between the claimants

and management-1 (N.B.C.C.).

2. Whether services of the claimants had been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by

management-2 & management-3.

3. Relief, if any.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3871

Now, these matters are listed for workman evidence. However, neither the workmen nor their

AR have been appearing from so many dates to substantiate their claims, despite providing a

number of opportunities.

In these circumstances, when claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their

claims, it appears that they are not interested to pursue their cases. Their claims stand dismissed.

Awards are passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. These files are consigned to record

room. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date- 23.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 2 जून, 2025

का.आ. 951.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्रीय सरकार के

दजक्षण ददल्ली नगर जनगम के प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री मदन कौजिक एवं 07 अन्य के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या ID No. 42/2023) को जजसा

हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल – 42025-07-2025-128-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2025

S.O. 951.—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. 42/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court– II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Sh. Madan Kaushik & 07 Others which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-128-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

BEFORE HON‘BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, I.T.O.,

NEW DELHI–110002.

I.D. No.42/2023

Sh. Madan Kaushik & 07 Others,

Through– Delhi Nagar Nigam Sarve Karamchari

Bhartiya Lokhit Morcha, RZ–45–B, M–Block,

Dhansa Road, Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh,

New Delhi–110043. …Applicant/Claimant

VERSUS

The Commissioner,

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

09^th Floor, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg,

Minto Road, New Delhi–110002.

…Managements/Respondents

3872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

DATED : 21.05.2025

Item No.-01

ID No. 42/2023

21st, May, 2025

Present:

Sh. Karunesh Shah, Ld. AR along with one of the claimant Sh. Rakesh Kumar.

Sh. Manik Ahluwalia, Ld. AR along with Sh. Bubulal Meena (School Inspector) for the

management. Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. AR for the management.

At the outset, counsel for the respondent has stated that the reference is liable to be rejected

because the workmen have been reinstated w.e.f. November, 2020 and they have been paid the

salary for the month of August, 2020. Therefore, nothing remains to be decided in this reference

now.

Record perused. Appropriate government vide letter dated 06.02.2023 had sent the

reference to this Tribuanl in the following words:

“Whether demands of Delhi Nagar Nigam Sarve Karamchari

Bhartiya Lokhit Morcha, Delhi i.r.t. Sh. Madan Kaushik & 7 Others (list

attached) vide letter dated 08.10.2020 against the management of South Delhi

Municipal Corporation (SDMC) regarding reinstatement of Sh. Mohan

Kaushik & 7 Others back into service and payment of wages for the month of

August, 2020 are proper, legal and justified? If yes, then for what reliefs the

workers are entitled? What directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”

Sh. Rakesh Kumar, one of the claimant amongst 8 claimants has stated that all the

workmen herein have been reinstated by the management w.e.f. November, 2020 and they have

been paid the salary for the month of August, 2020. His statement is recorded separately.

In view of the above statement, nothing remains in this reference to decide. Hence, their

claim stands dismissed as satisfied. Reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award is sent

to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. File

is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 3 जून, 2025

का.आ. 952.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

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

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

ds iapkV (a35/2022)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा.सं. ,y-39025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)-13]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2025

S.O. 952.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.35/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their

workmen.

[F.No. L-39025/01/2025– IR(B-II)-13]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3873

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR

COURT-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 35/2022

Sh. Prakash Kullu, S/o Sh. Deonis Kullu,

R/o 29/103-104, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.

Through-General Mazdoor Union,

F-49, Karampura, New Delhi-110015.

VERSUS

The General Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Cottage No.-21, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008.

AWARD

1. This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an

Act) filed by the claimant.

2. Claimant in his claim statement has stated that he was working with the management since 2012

as a Peon and his last drawn salary was Rs. 12,000/- per month. He did his work well and has not

given any chance of complaint to the management nor was he charged while he was in service.

Since beginning management has not been providing any legal facility i.e. HRA, Pay Slip,

Minimum Wages, ESI, PF, Leave Encashment, Causal Leave etc. When the workman demanded for

said legal benefits, management had terminated his services illegally on 20.03.2021 without giving

any reason and prior notice which is violation of provision of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act.

On 03.08.2021, the workman had sent a demand notice to the management through his union and

the same was duly served upon the management, but the management has not reinstated to workman

on duty. Thereafter, he had gone to the conciliation officer, but it was resulted into failure. Hence,

he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages.

3. Management has been already proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2022.

4. Now, the matter is listed for ex-parte workman evidence. Claimant is required to file his affidavit,

however, neither the workman nor his AR has been appearing since long to substantiate his claim.

5. In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in perusing his case, this tribunal has

no option but to dismiss his claim. Hence, his claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly.

A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D.

Act. File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 23.05.2025

नई ददल्ली, 3 जून, 2025

का.आ. 953. —औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

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

ds iapkV

(a137/2019, 140/2019, 141/2019, 142/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा.सं. ,y-12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-65]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

3874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2025

S.O. 953.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.137/2019,140/2019,141/2019,142/2019) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of India and their workmen.

[F.No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-I) -65]

SALONI, Dy. Director

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR

COURT-II, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 137/2019

Sh. Ram Snehi, S/o Sh. Lakshmi Narayan,

R/o-F-67, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059.

I.D. NO. 140/2019

Sh. Jitender Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Surya Singh,

R/o- House No.-29, Gali No. 24, Baprola Vihar,

DC Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh, New Delhoi-110043.

I.D. NO. 141/2019

Sh. Pramod Kumar Yadav, S/o Sh. Jagraj Singh,,

R/- RZ- 20B/193, Gali No. 13, Durga Park, Palam Village,

New Delhi-110045.

I.D. NO. 142/2019

Sh. Lal Mani Gupta, S/o Sh. Ram Nihor Gupta,

R./o- RZ-J-216/2, Plot No. 33, West Sagarpur, Nangal Raya.

South West Delhi,-Delhi-110046.

VERSUS

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

ATMS, Regional H.O.- SBI, 3^rd Floor, Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001.

2. C.I.S. Bureau Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.,

C-117, 2^nd Floor Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II,

New Delhi-110064.

AWARD

By this composite order, I shall dispose of these four applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act (here in after referred as an ‗Act‘) filed by the different claimants against the same

respondents, because of having the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are

taken together for their illegal termination. Claims of the workmen are that they have been serving the

management-1 through management-2. Name and particular of their employment are given below-

List of Workmen

Sr.

no.

Name

Post

Dates of

Joining

Dates of

Termination

Last drawn

Salary

Lal Mani Gupta

Security Guard

03.03.2014

01.06.2018

12,020/-

Pramod Yadav

Security Guard

03.03.2014

01.06.2018

12,020/-

Ram Snehi

Security Guard

03.03.2014

01.06.2018

12,020/-

Jitender Kumar

Security Guard

24.03.2014

01.06.2018

12,020/-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3875

They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records are clean and

they have not given any complaint so far. During the services, management never provided legal

facilities like Increment money, Leave money, Bonus and ESI card facility, weekly leave etc. which

the workmen had been demanding verbally. Due to this the employer immediately became angry and

in a spirit of revenge, without prior notice, without paying sum compensation and by making their

signs on some blank papers, claimants were terminated by the management on 01.06.2018 which is

illegal and improper and is a violation of law U/s 25 (G) and (F) of the ID Act. They had gone to the

conciliation officer, but, no results were yielded. Hence, they have filed the present claims.

W.S has been filed by the respondent-1, stating that M-1 neither appointed nor had terminated

the services of the workmen. It is submitted that M-1 had no direct control as they worked under

direct control and supervision of M-2, therefore, the present claims, being devoid of merits deserves

to be dismissed.

Management-2 has also filed its WS. They had denied the averment made in their claim

statements. M-2 submitted stated that claims of the claimants are not maintainable and is liable to be

dismissed.

After completion of the pleadings, following identical issues in all cases have been framed vide

order dated 23.10.2019 i.e.-

1. If the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between State Bank of India – M1

and workmen.

3. Whether the workmen were employed by M-2.

4. Whether the service of the workmen were illegal terminated.

5. To what relief the workmen are entitled to.

Now, these matters are listed for workmen evidence. AR of the claimants Sh. Sunil Saha

submitted that workmen are not in touch with him.

In these circumstances, when claimants have not been appearing since long to substantiate their

claims, it appears that they are not interested in pursuing their cases. Their claims stand dismissed.

Awards are passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. These files are consigned to record room.

A copy of this award is placed in each of the file.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date- 15.05.2025

नई ददल्ली, 3 जून, 2025

का.आ. 954.—औद्योगिक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

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

ds iapkV (a187/2014)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[फा.सं. ,y–12012/58/2014- vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 3rd June, 2025

S.O. 954.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.187/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their

workmen.

[F.No. L-12012/58/2014- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

3876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 20th day of May, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 187/2014

Between:

Sri Sheikh Jani Pasha,

S/o Shabbir,

R/o H.No.1-9-4/B, gopalapuram,

Ward No.11, Suryapet,

Dist. Nalgonda.

….. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Canara Bank, Circle Office,

Himayathnagar,

Hyderabad.

The Branch Manager

Canara Bank, Suryapet Branch,

Dist. Nalgonda.

…. Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar Goud, Advocates

For the Respondent:

M/s. B.N. Swamiji, Advocates

A W A R D

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12012/58/2014- IR(B.II) dated 1.8.2014

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

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

THE SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank, Suryapet branch of Nalgonda district, Andhra

Pradesh in terminating the service of Sri Sheikh Jani Pasha, Ex.Sweeper-cum-Peon is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.184/2014 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Sweeper cum Peon with 2^nd Respondent from 21.9.2009, as

vacancy was arose on compulsory retirement of earlier part time employee Smt. G. Laxmamma. At the time of

appointment of Petitioner as sweeper Petitioner completed 9^th class. The then Manager of 2^nd Respondent verified

certificates and then Petitioner was taken into service, however no order of appointment has been issued to Petitioner.

Since then Petitioner is working with Respondent to utmost satisfaction of officials in the bank. Petitioner was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3877

entrusted to sweep and clean entire bank premises, furniture and to arrange drinking water to staff and customers and

to clean ATM center attached to the 2^nd Respondent bank premises. Petitioner was also entrusted to work in bank as

Peon and Petitioner used to work from 8:00AM to 5:30PM and sometimes Petitioner used to work in the office upto

8:00PM as per the instructions of management. It is further submitted that Managers of 2^nd Respondent were

transferred from time to time, however all of them recommended for regularization of service of Petitioner, Managers

of 2^nd Respondent made correspondence with their officials and requested for regularization of service of Petitioner.

While being so the then manager namely Mr. Varadha Nagaiah from date of taking his charge, insisted to work at his

residence in addition to working in bank during office hours, Petitioner obliged instructions and worked in house of

said manager, Petitioner was entrusted to do all house hold work including washing clothes of Manager's family, wife

of said Manager. Further insisted to wash utensils and to clean bathrooms, for which Petitioner avoided same, due to

which said Manager formed grudge against Petitioner and orally terminated service of Petitioner on 14.1.2012 and

appointed another woman of his choice. 2^nd Respondent neither issued notice nor paid notice pay, that the oral

termination by 2^nd Respondent is nothing but bidding farewell in an unceremonious way by giving a go bye to

principles of natural justice which is illegal and arbitrary. At the time of terminating services of Petitioner he was

drawing wage of Rs.4412/- from head of 2^nd Respondent under staff account vide account No.0692111029047 and

salary paid through personal account of Petitioner vide Account No. 0692101027010 and Petitioner was also

continuously worked more than 240 days i.e. from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012 without any break and further from the

date of illegal oral termination the Petitioner remained unemployed and could not get any alternative employment. It

is further submitted that after illegal termination Petitioner approached 2^nd Respondent personally with a request to

reinstate him into service expecting, that 2^nd Respondent will consider request of Petitioner positively, on failure to

reinstate service of Petitioner he got issued a legal notice on 3.9.2012 by RPAD to 1^st and 2^nd Respondent having

received said legal notice there is no response from Respondents and there is clear vacant post with 2^nd Respondent. It

is submitted that the Petitioner has no other alternative except to approach Regional Labour Commissioner(Central),

Hyderabad. Further, it is submitted that false and baseless allegation was made by Respondent/management stating

that the complainant stopped attending to work after an attempt to commit fraud on the bank was reported and a

complaint was also lodged before the police authority at Suryapet. There is no iota of truth on that allegation, that

making such false and vague allegations against the Petitioner is illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural

justice. All the above allegations were made only to deny the reinstatement into service and the Petitioner reiterates

that he worked with the Respondent/management continuously from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012 without any break.

Therefore, it is prayed to direct Respondent No.1&2 to reinstate Petitioner as regular Sweeper cum Peon with

3878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

continuity of service, back wages with all consequential benefits by declaring action of termination dt 14.1.2012 by

2^nd Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice.

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

The claim statement of Petitioner workman is suffered with many infirmities such as suppressio vari and suggestion

falsi. The Petitioner not came before this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands but with motivated designs. The claim of

the Petitioner is liable to be rejected either in law or in facts. At the outset it is submitted that all the contentions raised

by the Petitioner are denied herewith unless it is specifically and expressly admitted hereunder. The Petitioner is put

to strict proof of his contentions. It is submitted that however, before going to the merit of the contentions raised by

the Petitioner the Respondent bank wish to bring certain vital points for better appreciation of matter. That the

Respondent is a Nationalized Bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of

Undertakings) Act, 1970 having branches all over the country and a few places in Abroad and Suryapet Branch is one

among them. Being the public financial institution any appointment in the bank is made based on the specific rules of

recruitment. In the present dispute mere reading of claim petition would reveal that the Petitioner has never

undergone any recruitment process of the bank and was never appointed in regular post of the bank, hence there

cannot be said to be an employer and employee relationship exist between Petitioner and the Respondent Bank which

is an essential parameter to raise any Industrial Dispute under ID Act, 1947. It is denied that the Petitioner was

working as a sweeper cum peon from 21/09/2009 or in that capacity any time at Suryapet Branch of Respondent. In

fact there was no such post in the bank nor has any such appointment letter has been issued to him. The Petitioner was

engaged in exigencies for doing menial work on different dates intermittently. The Petitioner engagement used to

come to an end each day of engagement. He has never continuously engaged for a period of 240 days in a calendar

year at any time. Furthermore, he stopped attending the said work after an attempt to commit a fraud on the bank

during 2012 which was reported against him. In this regard an intimation/complaint was made by the bank to the

police authorities at Suryapet. The Petitioner had not approached the branch thereafter for ascertaining availability of

work. It is also false to contend that the Respondent bank has taken him into service after verification of his

certificates. The contention of the Petitioner is that he worked from 8.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. as and when he engaged

in the work and sometimes upto 8 P.M. is not correct and totally false. The contention that his name was

recommended for regularization of services to the Deputy General Manager of circle office is far from the truth and

without any basis. The contention of the Petitioner is that his services were utilized by Sri V. Nagaiah, Branch

Manager for his domestic or personal needs is not admitted, at the same time it is irrelevant to the present claim as it

is not related to the bank. The allegation only seems to have been made for gaining misplaced sympathy. The

allegation of the Petitioner is that the manager further insisted to wash utensils and to clean bathrooms, for which the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3879

Petitioner avoided the same due to which the said Manager formed grudge against the Petitioner and terminated his

services is far from the truth and the date is created for the purpose of filing the present petition before this Hon'ble

Tribunal and there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the Petitioner. The contention of the

Petitioner that he was paid salary through the staff account, after repeated requests to reinstate his services were

rejected are not at all correct. As he was neither on the rolls of the bank nor an employee of the bank, payment of

salary through staff account will not arise. He purportedly created to claim there is a relationship of employee and

employer to show that he is an employee of the bank. In fact, his services were engaged as and when required and he

was paid accordingly. Moreover, the Petitioner on his own had stopped coming to the branch to ascertain availability

of any coolie work on daily basis. The contention of the Petitioner that in view of the alleged termination by the bank

he was unemployed and could not get any alternative employment is not correct, since the Petitioner on his own

stopped coming to the Branch for temporary ascertaining availability of any work/temporary engagement on day-to-

day basis. Since the Petitioner was not terminated from the services as alleged by him, hence reinstatement of the

Petitioner into the services and issuing reply notice for his legal notice Dt: 03/0972012 to the bank does not arise. The

service of the Petitioner is not permanent basis and it is day to-day basis as a coolie, hence the question of reply by

bank is not required. The Petitioner came with a malafide intention to harass the Respondents without any reasons.

The contention of the Petitioner is that the bank falsely pleaded before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.,

Hyderabad that the Petitioner was never engaged continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year any time

and stopped coming to the branch on his own is not correct and totally baseless. It is submitted that the Petitioner

himself stopped coming to the bank on his own, he has never engaged continuously for a period of 240 days in a

calendar year at any point of time as alleged by the Petitioner. It is not correct to contend that the act of Respondent

is violation of principles of natural justice. The authorities of the bank never sent any proposals to their higher

authorities to regularize the services of Petitioner at any point of time as alleged in his claim petition. Further, it is

submitted that the Petitioner is not a workman and the Respondent is an employer within the definition of I.D. Act in

the present dispute. Since, the Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted failure report in the conciliation held by

him, hence the said case now is referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication. The Petitioner engaged only for

doing cleaning work on intermittently and he was not an employee of the bank, hence terminating him from services

of the bank does not arise and accordingly his plea is totally baseless and untenable. In the light of the above, it is

submitted that since the Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal without any justifiable grounds and there are

no merits in the Petitioner's claim. Therefore, it is prayed to accept the contentions of the management and pass an

award dismissing the claim filed by the Petitioner holding that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

3880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Petitioner workman in support of his claim statement has examined himself as witness WW1 and has also

filed documents in evidence Ex. W1 to Ex.W12. On the other hand, Respondent has examined witness MW1 and

no documents filed on behalf of the Respondent. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. It would be

note worthy here that the original record of the case was lost from the custody of concerned UDC and disciplinary

proceeding has been initiated against the delinquent UDC. Therefore, the record of this case has been reconstructed

and admissible under Sec.65 of the Evidence Act.

On the basis of pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties following points emerge for

determination in the present case:-

Whether the action of Respondent management in terminating the services of Sri Sheikh Jani Pasha,

Ex.Sweeper cum Peon is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief if any the Petitioner is entitled?

Findings:-

Point No.I: Petitioner claims that he was appointed as sweeper cum peon with the 2^nd Respondent from

21.9.2009 as vacancy arose on compulsory retirement of earlier part time employee Smt. G. Laxmamma. Further,

Petitioner submitted that he was transferred from time to time and the management has recommended his name for

regularization in the service. Further, it is contended that Manager Sri Varda Nagaiah from the date of taking his

charge, bore grudge against the Petitioner and orally terminated the Petitioner from service with effect from 14.1.2012

and he appointed another woman of his choice for the work. In support of averments made in claim petition,

Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and he states in chief statement affidavit:-

“I was appointed as sweeper cum peon with Respondent No.2 from 21.9.2009, as vacancy was arose on compulsory

retirement of earlier part time employee Smt. G. Laxmamma. At the time of my appointment as sweeper I completed

9th class. The then Manger of 2^nd respondent verified certificates and then I was taken into service, however no order

of appointment has been issued to me, since then I am working with respondent to utmost satisfaction of all officials

in the bank. I entrusted to sweep and clean entire bank premises, furniture and to arrange drinking water to staff and

customers and to clean ATM center attached to the Respondent No.2 bank premises. I was also entrusted to work in

bank as peon and I used to work from 8:00AM to 5:30PM and sometimes I used to work in the office up to 8:00 PM

as per the instructions of management.

While being so the then manager namely (Varadha Nagaiah) from date of taking his charge, he insisted to work at his

residence in addition to working in bank during office hours, I obliged instructions and worked in house of said

manager, I have entrusted to do all house hold work including washing clothes of manager's family, wife of said

manager further insisted to wash utensils and to clean bathrooms, for which I avoided same, due to which said

manager formed grudge against me and orally terminated of my service on 14-1-2012 and appointed another woman

of his choice. Respondent No.2 neither issued notice nor paid notice pay, that the oral termination by Respondent

No.2 is nothing but bidding farewell in an unceremonious way by giving a go bye to principles of Natural Justice

which is illegal and arbitrary. At the time of terminating of my services he, was drawing wage of Rs.4412/- from head

of Respondent No.2 under staff account vide account No.0692111029047 and salary paid through my personal

account vide Account No. 0692 101027010 and I was also continuously worked more than 240. days i.e., from 21-9-

2009 to 14-1-2012 without any break and further from the date of illegal oral termination I remained unemployed and

could not get an alternative employment.”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3881

Further, WW1 has also exhibited the documents in evidence. Ex.W1 and Ex.W2 are copies of letters

dated 29.7.2010 and 7.1.2011 by 2^nd Respondent seeking permission from DGM, circle office for engaging

Petitioner. Ex.W3 is the letter dated 29.12.2011 to the DGM, Circle office. Ex.W4 is the notice issued by the

Petitioner to R1 and R2. Ex.W5 is the acknowledgement of Ex.W4. Ex.W6 is the copy of transfer certificate.

Ex.W7 is the caste certificate of the Petitioner. Ex.W8 is copy of bank statement of A/c No. 0692101027010.

Ex.W9 is the staff account passbook of the Petitioner with statement of account number 0692111029047.

Ex.W10 is the copy of staff account cheque book of Petitioner. Ex.W11 is copy of the employment exchange

card. Ex.W12 is the copy of document issued by SHO, Suryapet Police Station dt.24.2.2018 stating that no

FIR is registered or pending against the Petitioner.

10.

WW1 was also cross examined by the Respondent Counsel and witness states:-

“I got exhibit W1 from the Manager of the bank. It is not true to suggest that I am working on daily wage basis and

taking wages from the Respondent bank. The Respondent bank credited my monthly salary to my account. No such

entry regarding credit of my monthly salary is available in Exhibit W8. Exhibit W3 indicates that I am working under

the Respondent’s bank on adhoc basis. From Exhibit W8 it reveals that I was getting wages on weekly basis but the

witness volunteers that he was getting monthly salary not on weekly basis. Ex. W8 also indicates that after receipt of

the wages for the week it is transferred to my mother’s account but we have a joint account and I have not transferred

my salary to my mother’s account. The contents of my chief evidence affidavit has been read and explained to me in

Telugu language but there is no endorsement to that effect in my chief evidence affidavit. I mentioned that I was

drawing wage of Rs.4412/- from the 2^nd Respondent under the staff account. But the staff account under Ex.W9

does not disclose about such drawl of amount. I have been appointed as a sub-staff under the 2^nd Respondent but no

document to that effect is filed in this case.”

11.

Thus, in the cross examination WW1 stood firm and corroborated his statement in chief. There is nothing

elicited in the cross examination to discredit or disbelieve the testimony of WW1. However, WW1 in the cross

examination at one place have stated that he has not filed any document in this case to show that he has worked for

240 days in a calendar year. But, it is settled law that the testimony of the witness cannot be read in isolation of rest

of the statement of witness and the whole statement of witness in conjunction should be read in the evidence. Thus,

on the basis of oral and documentary evidence it is established that the Petitioner had worked with the Respondent as

a daily wager from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012 continuously and he has been paid daily wages into his account by the

Respondent bank on weekly basis.

12.

Petitioner submitted that Respondent has terminated his services in gross violation of provisions contained

under section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Before examining the plea raised by workman it would be apposite to have

a look at the relevant provision contained under I.D. Act, 1947:-

Section 25 F reads out as under:-

Section 25F:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

3882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average payfor every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides:-

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

Before, claiming the violation of provision of Section 25-F by Respondent, Petitioner has to show and prove

condition precedent that he had been in continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year just preceding from the date

of his termination. Petitioner has filed in documentary evidence, Ex. W9- his statement of Bank account for the

period from 1.1.2008 to 20.9.2011. The statement of account Ex.W9 goes to show that the Respondent bank has

weekly credited the wages amount in the Bank account of the Petitioner.

It is settled law that the burden of proof that the Petitioner had been engaged by the Respondent management and he

had completed 240 days of continuous service in a twelve months of calendar year just preceding from date of his

termination lies upon him. The decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore Vs.

S. Mani & others AIR 2005 SC 2179 is relevant on this point. Therein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

“BURDEN OF PROOF:

The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service. The Tribunal

did not consider the question from that angle. It held that the burden of proof was upon the Appellant on the premise

that they have failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service stating:

"It is admitted case of the parties that all the 1st parties under the references CR No. 1/92 to 11/92 have been

appointed by the 2nd party as ticca mazdoors. As per the 1st parties, they had worked continuously from April, 1980

to December, 1982. But the 2nd party had denied the above said claim of continuous service of the 1st parties on the

ground that the 1st parties has not been appointed as regular workmen but they were working only as temporary part

time workers as ticca mazdoor and their services were required whenever necessary arose that too on the leave

vacancies of regular employees. But as strongly contended by the counsel for the 1st party, since the 2nd party had

denied the above said claim of continuous period of service, it is for the 2nd party to prove through the records

available with them as the relevant records could be available only with the 2nd party."

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3883

The Tribunal, therefore, accepted that the Appellant had denied the Respondents' claim as regard their continuous

service.

In Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani [(2002) 3 SCC 25], it was stated:

"3In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the

basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his

termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was

then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his

termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient

evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a

year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this

period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.

[See also Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, (2002) 8 SCC 400] In Siri Niwas (supra), this Court held:

"The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act per se are not applicable in an industrial adjudication. The general

principles of it are, however applicable. It is also imperative for the Industrial Tribunal to see that the principles of

natural justice are complied with. The burden of proof was on the respondent herein to show that he had worked for

240 days in preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment. In terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, an order retrenching a workman would not be effective unless the conditions precedent therefor

are satisfied. Section 25-F postulates the following conditions to be fulfilled by employer for effecting a valid

retrenchment :

(i) one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof;

(ii) payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days, average pay for every completed year of continuous service

or any part thereof in excess of six months."

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above the burden of proof lies upon

the Petitioner to prove the fact that he had worked continuously with the Respondent management for 240 days in a

calendar year just preceding from the date of his termination. In this process petitioner witness WW1 has testified in

the chief statement affidavit that he was appointed as sweeper cum peon with respondent No.2 from 21.9.2009 as

vacancy arose on compulsory retirement of earlier part time sweeper and he was taken into service by respondent but

no order of appointment was issued to him. Further WW1 states that he was entrusted to work of sweeping and

cleaning of Bank of premises, furniture and arrange drinking water to staff and customers. Further, WW1 deposed

that he had worked in the respondent Bank from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012 continuously without break and he was paid

his salary through his personal bank account No.0692111029047. Thus, WW1 has stated that he had worked for 240

days continuously in the service of respondent. Apart from his testimony petitioner has also filed photocopies of his

bank account statement Ex.W9 which goes to show that the wages of petitioner was credited by the bank in the bank

account of Petitioner periodically. The existence of document Ex.W9 has been admitted by respondent witness

MW1. Thus, from the oral testimony of WW1 and Bank Account statement of Petitioner, it is undisputedly

established that petitioner has worked as daily wages workman for 240 days continuously with respondent just

preceding from date of his termination and further it is also established that before termination of services of

petitioner, respondent did not issue any notice to Workman nor paid any compensation in compliance of provision

contained under section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Thus, the termination of the petitioner from service by respondent

with effect from 14.1.2012 is illegal and found in contravention of provision contained under section 25 F of the I.D.

3884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Act, 1947 which provides condition precedent for termination/retrenchment of workman as discussed in preceding

paras.

13.

On the other hand, Respondent has contended that, in the present dispute mere reading of claim petition

would reveal the petitioner has never undergone any recruitment process of the bank and was never appointed in

regular post of the bank, hence there cannot be set to be an employer and employee relationship exist between

Petitioner and the Respondent Bank which is an essential parameter to raise any Industrial Dispute under ID Act,

1947. It is denied that the petitioner was working as a sweeper cum peon from 21/09/2009 or in that capacity any

time at our Suryapet Branch. In fact, there was no such post in our bank nor has any such appointment letter has been

issued to him. The petitioner was engaged in exigencies for doing menial work on different dates intermittently. The

petitioner engagement used to come to an end each day of engagement. He has never continuously engaged for a

period of 240 days in a calendar year at any time. Further more, he stopped attending the said work after an attempt

to commit a fraud on the bank during 2012 which was reported against him. In this regard an intimation/complaint

was made by the bank to the police authorities at Suryapet. The petitioner had not approached the branch thereafter

for ascertaining availability of work. It is also false to contend that the respondent bank has taken him into service

after verification of his certificates. The contention of the petitioner is that he worked from 8-00 A.M. to 8.30 P.M. as

and when he engaged in the work and sometimes upto 8.00 P.M. is not correct and totally false. The contention of the

petitioner is that he was paid salary through the staff account, after repeated requests to reinstate his services were

rejected are not at all correct. As he was neither on the roles of the bank nor an employee of the bank, payment of

salary through staff account will not arise. This contention is purportedly created to claim there is a relationship of

employee and employer that to his aim to show he is an employee of the bank. In fact, his services were engaged as

and when required and he was paid accordingly. Moreover the petitioner on his own had stopped coming to the

branch to ascertain availability of any coolie work on daily basis. The contention of the petitioner that in view of the

alleged termination by the bank he was unemployed and could not get any alternative employment is not correct,

since the petitioner on his own stopped coming to the Branch for temporary ascertaining availability of any

work/temporary engagement on day-to-day basis.

14.

Further, it is contended that Petitioner was not terminated from service as alleged by him hence reinstatement

of the Petitioner into the services and issuing reply for his legal notice to the bank does not arise. Further, it is

contended that the services of the Petitioner is not on permanent basis and it is day to day basis as a coolie, hence the

question of reply by bank is not required. In support of his contention Respondent has examined MW1 who in his

statement of affidavit has reiterated the contentions as made in the counter. Further, this witness MW1 was cross

examined by the Petitioner counsel and in cross examination witness MW1 states:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3885

“I do not know the exact period of working of the Petitioner but he worked as a daily wager. There is no record for

daily wages workman. As and when the work is there we call him for work and paid the wages. I do not know the

exact date of retirement of one Smt.Laxmamma who worked as a sweeper cum peon in our Suryapet branch. After

retirement of Smt. Laxmamma we used to engage Petitioner as a daily wager. The work of Petitioner is to clean the

bank premises. I know Sri Koteshwar Rao, Reshma and Varadanagaiah who worked as managers in Suryapet branch.

The Petitioner was paid his wages either through cash or personal account of the Petitioner. I do not know whether

the Petitioner was having a staff account or not. The Petitioner was disengaged basing on a allegation of fraud. No

copy of the police complaint was submitted in this Tribunal. Witness adds that after making complaint to the police

the Petitioner not attended the work.‖

Thus, from the above statement of the Respondent witness MW1 also, it is established that the Petitioner has worked

as a daily wager in the Respondent bank and his wages were paid by bank either through cash or personal account of

the Petitioner. Further witness MW1 states that he never worked in the Suryapet branch. Personally he is not aware of

the facts of the case. Further, MW1 states that he knows that after retirement of Laxmamma, sweeper another

person was engaged in her place on daily basis. He knows that in place of Laxmamma the Petitioner was engaged.

Further, witness states that there are separate accounts for the employees of the bank. The bank will open separate

accounts for its employees. Similar account has been opened for Petitioner also. Thus, MW1 in his cross

examination has admitted that petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Workman in the Respondent bank and he was

paid his wages by the bank into his bank account. Thus, testimony of MW1 extend the corroboration to the statement

of petitioner that he had worked with Respondent bank from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012. Further, witness MW1 states,

“I verified the amount has been transferred from the bank account to the Petitioner’s account. Witness adds that on

weekly basis. It is true that Ex.W9 is the account statement of the Petitioner and it is a staff account and wages were

paid on weekly basis. It is not true to suggest that the payments were not continuous in staff account. It is not true to

suggest that I am deposing without properly verifying the Ex.W9 though the wages were paid continuously. It is not

true to suggest that the wages paid to the Petitioner continuously for the period from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012.

Sometimes the bank has paid the wages to the personal account of the Petitioner on weekly basis. Ex. W8 is the

statement of the personal bank account where wage was transferred by the bank to the Petitioner. Our bank will not

maintain any attendance register for daily wage workers.”

Thus, from the above statement of the MW1 in cross examination it is established that the Petitioner had worked with

the Respondent continuously for 240 days just preceding from the date of the termination i.e., 14.1.2012. Witness

MW1 further states that he has not verified the daily wage record of the bank from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012. The

witness adds that the said record will be available in the said branch. Further, MW1 states:-

― It is not true to suggest that no records are available, intentionally, deliberately the same were not filed before this

Tribunal because the Petitioner has worked continuously for the period from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012. Further,

witness states that it is true and correct that Ex.W1 to W3 was the correspondence by the then Manager to the Dy.

General Manager. It is presumed that Ex.W1 to W3 are correspondence by the then Manager because the

satisfactory services and continuous work the Petitioner was recommended for regularization and engagement

permanently. Out of three Managers who were mentioned above Sri Varadanagaiah and Reshma are alive and I do

not know about the whereabouts of Sri Koteswara Rao. Further witness MW1 in cross examination states that it is

not true to suggest that Petitioner is by all means eligible for reinstatement as attender cum sweeper as he is qualified

and also worked for more than 240 days immediate before 14.1.2012. It is not true to suggest that the Petitioner was

physically prevented from entering the premises of the bank to discharge his duties orally. Further witness states

that it is true that Smt. Laxmamma was a continuous process of work which includes cleaning of premises of bank and

at the ATM. “

3886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, from the statement of the Respondent witness MW1 it is clearly established that the Petitioner had worked with

the Respondent from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012 and also continuously for 240 days in a calendar year just preceding

from the date of his termination. Respondent failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to show that

before termination of the Petitioner, one month notice was served to him as per provision contained under section 25

F of I.D. Act, 1947 or Petitioner was paid one month wages in lieu of one month notice or was paid any

compensation as per provision contained u/s. 25F of Act, 1947. Thus, the action of Respondent in termination of the

Petitioner from service without complying the provision of section 25 F is found in contravention of provision

contained u/s. 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947, hence, illegal and unjustified.

Thus, Point No.I is decided in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent.

15.

Point No.II:- This point pertains to question of relief to be granted to Petitioner. In view of the finding

given at Point No.I, it is established that Respondent has terminated services of Petitioner with effect from 14.1.2012

without complying the provision contained under section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947, therefore, the termination of the

Petitioner from service is in contravention of the provision of Section 25F of the Act.

16.

As far as the question of relief of reinstatement of the Petitioner into service of the Respondent is concerned,

in this context, the reference of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court are relevant and same are discussed hereunder:-

In the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, Civil Appeal No.10957/2015 Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

“It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of

retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not,

however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has

completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been

found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between

a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in

Telegraph Deptt. V. Santosh Kumar Seal[12], wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para ll) "In view of the

aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they

worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and

instead monetary compensation would subserve the ends of justice."

………. …………

23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with

full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may

be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and or malafide and/or by way

of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage

worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages

is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.

Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.”

Further, the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi flight Services AIR 2010 SCC page 502 is relevant,

wherein Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute2 this Court considered the matter thus:

"21. The question, which, however, falls for our consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in

awarding reinstatement of the appellants in service.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3887

22. Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the respondent (sic appellants); the fact

that the respondent had stopped its operation of bee farming, and the services of the appellants were terminated in

December 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have been directed to be

reinstated in service.

23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be

exercised judiciously. Relevant factors therefor were required to be taken into consideration; the nature of

appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court for determination

of such an issue.

24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of a

direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subserve the ends of justice. (See Jaipur

Development Authority v. Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC 748] and

Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353])

25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of Rs.

1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned

extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs."

9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and few more decisions were considered by us in the case of Jagbir

JT 2008 (3)SC622 Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board3 albeit in the context of retrenchment of a

daily wager in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for more than 240 days in a year

and we observed thus:

"7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the

termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily

follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of cases, this Court has

consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly

inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention to the

prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice."

In the case of Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore Vs. S. Mani & others AIR 2005 SC 2179 Hon‘ble Supreme Court have

held:-―In law, 240 days of continuous service by itself does not give rise to claim of permanence. Section 25F

provides for grant of compensation if a workman is sought to be retrenched in violation of the conditions referred to

therein. [See Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd.(supra). See also Madhyamik

Siksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra and others, etc., AIR 1994 SC 1638] In A. Umarani (supra), this Court

held:

"Regularisation, in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any "State" within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a Statutory Act or the Rules

framed thereunder. It is also now well-settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of

the Statute and in particular ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would

be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (See State of H.P. Vs. Suresh

Kumar Verma and Another, (1996) 7 SCC 562)."

Yet again, in Executive Engineer, ZP Engg. Divn. And Another Vs. Digambara Rao and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 262]

this Court held:

"It may not be out of place to mention that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not by itself be

a ground for directing an order of regularization. It is also not the case of the Respondents that they were appointed

in accordance with the extant rules. No direction for regularization of their services was, therefore, could be issued."

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion, law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above and in the

facts and circumstances of the case, workman is not entitled to relief of reinstatement in the service. However, the

Petitioner workman has worked as a daily wager for the period from 21.9.2009 to 14.1.2012 and he has not worked

against any permanent post. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the award of compensation of a sum

of Rs.2,00,000/- will be appropriate relief in this case.

3888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

As regard the plea of the Petitioner for absorption/regularisation in the service, in this case the reference of

the dispute made by the Government of India vide letter dated 1.8. 2014 was sent to this Tribunal for adjournment

about legality and justification of action of Respondent -Canara Bank, in terminating the service of Sri Sheikh Jani

Pasha, Ex.Sweeper-cum-Peon vide order dated 14.1.2012. There is no reference of the dispute regarding

regularization of the Petitioner in the service of the Respondent in the present matter. Therefore, plea of the

Petitioner with regard to regularization is outside the scope of the reference in this matter, hence not maintainable.

Thus, Point No.II is decided accordingly.

AWARD

The action of the management of Canara Bank, Suryapet branch of Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh in

terminating the service of Sri Sheikh Jani Pasha, Ex.Sweeper-cum-Peon is not legal and justified. Therefore, the

order dated 14.1.2012 passed by Respondent whereby terminating the services of the Petitioner is hereby set aside.

Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the workman in lieu of

reinstatement within two months from the date of receipt of this award. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this

the 20th day of May, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Shaik Jani Pasha

MW1: Nil

नई ददल्ली, 4 जून, 2025

का.आ. 955.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

भारती इंफ्राटेल जलजमटेड, नई ददल्ली, भारती इंफ्राटेल जलजमटेड, गुड़गांव, भारती इंफ्राटेल जलजमटेड, इंदौर (म.प्र.),

प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री मनोज ृांडे, कामगार,के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जडलृुर ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या आईडी नंडर सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/08/2017, को जजसा

दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल - 42025-07-2025-129-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2025

S.O. 955.—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/08/2017), of the Central Government

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3889

employers in relation to Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi, Bharti Infratel Ltd., Gurgaon, Bharti Infratel Ltd.,

Indore (M.P.), and Shri Manoj Pandey, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42025-07-2025-129-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/08/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Manoj Pandey

S/o. Brij Mohan Lal Pandey,

R/o. H. No. 242, Hari Nagar Colony

Neel Bird, Post Sooraj Nagar

Bhopal (M.P.)

Workman

1. Bharti Infratel Ltd.

Through its Chairman

Registered Office – Bharti Crescent 1

Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj

Phase-II New Delhi 110070

2. Chief Executive Officer

Bharti Infratel Ltd.

901, Park Central, 9^th Floor

Sector 30, Gurgaon-122001.

3. Circle Head (HR-MP-CG)

Bharti Infratel Ltd., H-3, Metro Tower

4^th Floor, Scheme No. 54, Near Vijay

Nagar Square, AB Road, Indore (M.P.)

Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 07^th day of May-2025)

The Workman has filed petition under Section 2(A) (2 & 3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1949 (in short

the Act), against termination of his services by the Management with a case that, he had joined the Management as

Cluster Incharge vide order dated 14.03.2011 and was posted at Janjgir Champa (C.G.). He was transferred to

Narsinghpur vide order dated 05.05.2013. Worked there till 03.11.2014. He was transferred from Narsinghpur to

Rewa and joined at Rewa. While working in Rewa, he applied for leave from 25.09.2015 to 11.10.2015 on the ground

of pregnancy of his wife, which was duly sanctioned. This leave was further extended from 12.10.2015 to 15.11.2015

by management on his application. He was transferred by management Rewa to Dhar vide order dated 14.10.2015

while he was on leave. He further applied for expansion of his leave from 16.11.2015 to 09.12.2015, which was

approved by management. Management issued a letter dated 09.12.2015 with allegation of unauthorized absence from

15.11.2015 and required the workman to explain his absence. The workman joined thereafter immediately but he was

issued a letter dated 24.12.2015 stating that he has not submitted the explanation of letter of management dated

09.12.2015 and was further required to submit written explanation within 7 days. He submitted his explanation dated

29.12.2015 denying the allegation of unauthorized absence but the management terminated his services vide order

3890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 23.03.2016 on the ground that they have lost confidence and trust upon him. According to the workman, this

termination is stigmatic, passed without conducting inquiry, hence unjust, illegal and arbitrary and in violation of

Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act. The workman has prayed that holding the termination of his services vide order

dated 23.03.2016 and 28.03.2016 against law, he 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 firstly, the petitioner is not a

workman as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Act because he was appointed as a Cluster Incharge which was managerial in

nature and was paid basic salary Rs. 11633/- p.m. with allowances totaling at Rs. 24219/-. Hence, he is not a

workman as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Act. secondly, the service record of the workman was no satisfactory and his

performance during the service was prejudicial to the interest of the employer. He had thus lost confidence of

management and was terminated from service invoking Clause 4 of his service agreement.

The petitioner has filed his rejoinder in which he has mainly reiterated his case as taken by him the petition.

In evidence, the petitioner/applicant workman filed photocopy of his appointment offer, notice of

management dated 09.12.2015, reply dated 29.12.2015, termination letter dated 23.03.2016 and 28.03.2016 all

admitted by management and marked Exb. W/1 to W/5. Management has filed photocopy of offer of Appointment,

Joining Check List, Parichay, Joining Report, Family Declaration Form regarding Benevolent Fund, Code of

Conduct, Notice, Reply and Termination Order, all marked Exhibits. Neither the workman nor management has filed

any affidavit as their examination in chief.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for management Mr. Jaydeep Bansal. None appeared for

workman. I have gone through the record as well.

The first argument of Learned Counsel for Management is that the petitioner is not a Workman as

defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and secondly, there is no illegality committed by Management in terminating

services of petitioner in the light of his appointment contract.

Form the perusal of the record in the light of aforesaid arguments, following issues arises for

determination:

1. Whether the petitioner is workman as defined under Section 2(S) of the Act.

2. Whether the action of the Management in terminating services of the petitioner is stigmatic and is

arbitrary.

Issue No. 1:-

Section 2(S) of the Act, which defines Workman, is being reproduced as follows:

2(s) ―workman‖ means any person including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the

terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in

relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or

retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3891

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per

mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers

vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.……………………….

Learned Counsel for Management has relied on judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case

of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V.s. Ramesh Kumbla and Others reported in MANU/MH/0073/1999 and

another judgment of the same High Court in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V.s. D. Samuel and

Others reported in MANU/MH/1713/1998. In these two cases, after analyzing the judgment of various

High Courts and Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the Single Bench of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has

summarized the principles on the basis of which it is to be decided whether the Workman is in supervisory

capacity or not. These tests mentioned in Para 34 and 35 of the Judgment are being reproduced as

follows:

Para-34.

In so far as the Apex Court is concerned, some of the tests laid down are:

(1)

Designation is not material but what is important is the nature of work.

(2)

Find out the dominant purpose of employment and not any additional duties the employee may be

performing.

(3)

Can he bind the Company/employer to some kind of decisions on behalf of the

Company/employer.

(4)

Has the employee power to direct or oversee the work of his subordinates.

(5)

Has the power to sanction leave or recommend it; and

(6)

Has he the power to appoint, terminate or take disciplinary action against workmen.

Para-35.

From the judgment of this Court and the other High Courts some of the tests apart from

what the Apex Court has stated are:

(a) Whether the employee can examine the quality of work and whether such work is performed in

satisfactory manner or not;

(b) Does the employee have powers of assigning duties and distribution of work;

(c) Can he indent material and distribute the same amongst the workmen;

(d) Even though he has no authority to grant leave does he have power to recommend leave;

(e) Are there persons working under him;

(f) Has he the power to supervise the work of men and not merely machines;

(g) Dos he mark the attendance of other employees;

(h) Does he write the confidential reports of his subordinates.

Now analyzing the evidence in the case in hand, on the basis of tests laid down in the aforesaid Judgment

it comes out that the role and duties of the Applicant/Petitioner have been defined in his letter of Appointment. The

Clause 6.5 of the appointment letter specifically states the following

―6.5

Being appointed in managerial cadre you will work to ensure overall smooth and effective

functioning of the department/ establishment/ office/ staff/ employees and will be responsible for

the successful and timely completion of any job/work assigned to you. You would adhere to the

norms of office discipline including working hours, systems and procedures.‖

There is no evidence on behalf of workman to show that he did not work in supervisory capacity or to show

that he was working and discharging duties of workman as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Act. Hence, in absence of that

evidence the management is held to have succeeded in establishing that the petitioner is not a workman as defined u/s.

2(s) of the Act.

3892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management has further referred to another judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Lenin

Kumar Rai Vs. M/s. Express Publications arising out of SLP No. (C) 5660/2023 and connected SLP (C)

12876/2024, in which Hon‘ble the Supreme Court has held that the determinative factor for workman covered under

Section 2(s) of the Act is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not

merely the designation of his post, also that the onus to prove nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be

a workman.

Hence, on the basis of above action the petitioner is held not to be a workman as defined under Section 2(s)

of the Act.

Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No. 2:-

Case of management is that, since the work and conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory, his services

were terminated by management taking recourse to Clause 4 of his work agreement.

Undisputedly, the workman was first appointed in 2013 and was terminated in 2013.under Clause 3.1 & 3.2

of the service agreement (Exb. M/1) his probation for six months which could be extended. Since there is nothing on

record to show that his probation was extended, it will be deemed that he had acquired permanent status.

Clause 4 is being reproduced as follows:-

― 4. Terminating :-

4.1

During the probation period, your services may be terminated by the management by giving fifteen

day’s written notice or basic salary in lieu thereof without assigning any reasons. Similarly you may resign

from the service of the company by giving fifteen day’s notice in writing or basic salary in lieu thereof. After

your confirmation, the management may terminate your employment, by giving two month’s written notice or

basic salary in lieu thereof without assigning any reasons. Similarly you can leave service of the company by

giving two month’s notice in writing or basic salary in lieu thereof after your confirmation.

4.2

Your employment shall stand terminated forthwith on the happening of the following :

(i)

if you are held guilty of any offence involving moral turpitude ; or

(ii)

if you do not join within the stipulated date, unless extended in writing.

4.3

Upon termination of your employment, you (or your legal heirs as the case may be) shall

immediately return to the company, any and all documents, manuals, documented confidential information

(without making any copies thereof and/ or extracts there from), kits and other property belonging to the

company that may be entrusted to and/ or placed in your possession by virtue of and/or during the course of

your employment with the company. You (or your legal heirs as the case may be) shall also deliver to the

company immediately all notes, analyses, summaries and working papers relating thereto.

Since, termination of his services has been done on a date after expiry of probation period, his termination

would be governed by Clause 4.2 above mentioned. As the two termination letters of the petitioner disclose, the

reason for termination was that management had lost confidence in him. Reference of case Deepti Prakash Banerjee

Vs. S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Science, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60, may be taken here. In this case the

services of the employee were terminated on the ground of loss of confidence. Supreme Court held that this was not a

termination simpliciter rather it was a stigmatic termination which could be done after an inquiry only. This principle

has been followed by Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. in the case of Rahul Tripathi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission,

reported in (2001) 3 MPLJ 616.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3893

Since, it is the case of management that the Petitioner was terminated from service because his work was not

satisfactory, details mentioned in para 5 of the written statement, it was incumbent on management to conduct an

inquiry into the lapses alleged and give an opportunity to the petitioner to have his side. Since, it was not done, the

termination order is not justified in law.

Issue No. 2 answered accordingly.

Since, the petitioner has been held not a workman as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Act, the petition is held

not cognizable by this Tribunal and stands disposed accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 07/05/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 4 जून, 2025

का.आ. 956.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

उृ-अजभयंता/अनुभागीय अजधकारी, आकािवाणी, जडलृुर; मु्‍य अजभयंता, आकािवाणी, नई ददल्ली प्रडंधतंत्र के संडद्ध

जनयोजकों और श्री रामचररत सेन, कामगार,के डीच अनुडंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम

न्यायालय, जडलृुर ृंचाट(संदभ सं्‍या आईडी नंडर सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/83/2017, को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 30.05.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा.सं. एल -42012/8/2006-आईआर (डीयू)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2025

S.O. 956.—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/83/2017), 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 Sub-Engineer/ Sectional Officer, All India Radio, Jabalpur; Chief Engineer, All India

Radio, New Delhi and Shri Ramcharit Sen, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 30.05.2025.

[F.No. L-42012/8/2006-IR (DU)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/83/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Shri Ramcharit Sen

S/o Shri Ramsakha Sen

Through Shri Sanjay Singh,

Flat No. 105,

Kartik Apartment,

Near Home Science Collage,

Napier Town, Jabalpur.

Workman

3894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. Sub-Engineer/ Sectional Officer,

All India Radio, Civil Construction

Wing-C, Sub-Division Katanga,

Narmada Road,

Jabalpur.

4. Chief Engineer, All India Radio,

Civil Construction Wing-C,

P.T.I. Building,

New Delhi.

Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 09^thday of May - 2025)

As per letter dated 22/05/2017 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-

42012/8/2006 (IR(DU)) dt. 22/05/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the action of the Management of Sub- Engineer All India Radio Civil Construction Wing-C,

Sub-Division Katanga, Jabalpur (M.P.) is terminating the services of Sh. Ramcharit Sen S/o Sh. Ramsakha Sen

casual workman, w.e.f. 01.04.1989 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled to?‖

Case of the Workman is mainly that, he was appointed on 01.01.1987 as a Peon on daily wages in the

Office of the Assistant Engineer Civil at All India Radio, Jabalpur and worked continuously there till 01.04.1989

when his services were terminated without any notice or compensation which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary being in

violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. He has prayed that holding the action of Management in terminating his

services without notice or compensation vide order dated 01.04.1989. He be held entitled to be reinstated with back

wages and benefits.

Case of Management is mainly that he was never appointed in any capacity by Management, hence there is

no question of termination of his services also, that his claim is barred by delay and latches on his part.

In evidence, the Workman, has filed certified copy of reply of Management filed by them in W.P. No.

5844/2014, reply of Management before Labour Commissioner filed on 05.02.2005 and 10.01.2006, interim order of

Hon‘ble High Court dated 11.01.2017, Original Identity Card said to be issued by Management. Workman has filed

his affidavit as his examination-in-chief; no cross-examination has been done by Management side.

I have heard argument of Mr. Vinod Kumar Napit Learned Counsel for Workman. None was present for

argument from side of Management. Workman has filed written argument also. No written argument has been filed by

Management. I have gone through the record as well.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments following issues arise for determination :-

1. Whether the Workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement with Management for period

from 01.01.1987 to 01.04.1989?

2. Whether the Workman is entitled to any relief?

Issue No. 1 :-

Section 25B, 25F and 25G of the Act are being reproduced as follows:-

25B. Definition of continuous service —

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in

uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised

leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to

any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of

one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—

(a)

for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 7, 2025/ ज् येष् ठ 17, 1947

3895

worked under the employer for not less than —

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a

mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

(b)

for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually

worked under the employer for not less than—

(i) ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. —

No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one

year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a)

the workman has been given one month‘s notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu

of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b)

the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service]

or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c)

notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such

authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the

Official Gazette].

25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—

Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched

and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any

agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench

the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded

the employer retrenches any other workman.

Now looking into the facts of the case in hand and evidence in the light of these provisions, it comes out

that there is a uncross-examined affidavit of the Workman filed as his examination-in-chief which corroborates his

case on the point that he was first appointed as Chaukidar on daily wages and worked till 01.04.1989 when his

services were terminated without notice or compensation. This fact is further corroborated by his original card filed

and proved by him. There is on record, reply of Management filed by them in the W.P. No. 5844/2014, the Writ

Petition was filed by the Workman against his termination and refusal by the Central Government to refer the dispute

to this Tribunal. In its written reply Paragraph 5 the Management has admitted that, though the Workman was engaged

on daily basis but was not engaged nor did he worked continuously for 240 days in any year.

The burden to proof the fact that, he was engaged for 240 days in any year is on the Workman. There is on

record his uncontroverted affidavit as well as the Written Reply of Management filed before Hon‘ble High Court,

details mentioned above; wherein they have admitted that the Workman was engaged by them as daily wager. In

absence of any evidence to rebut this allegation, it is held that, the Workman has successfully proved his engagement

for 240 days in a year within the period of 01.01.1987 to 01.04.1989.

Since, this fact is uncontroverted that, he was not given any notice or compensation in his disengagement

held in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 :-

The undisputedly, the Workman was disengaged in 1989, he first raised the dispute in 2014 as it appears

from documents on record which are in form of his application before Labour Commissioner and before Hon‘ble

High Court writ petition No. mentioned above, directing the Government to refer the dispute to this Tribunal.

Now he is no doubt crossed the age of his superannuation, hence his reinstatement will not serve any

purposes. Keeping in mind the largely delayed claim raised by the Workman though there is no limitation provided for

this, and also the fact that, he was engaged not against any sanctioned vacancy following recruitment process and

minimum compensation of 25,000/- in lieu of all his claims will meet the ends of justice in my view which he is held

3896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 7, 2025/JYAISTHA 17, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

entitled to get from Management within 30 days from the date of publication of Award, failing which interest @6%

from date of publication of this Award.

AWARD

Holding the action of the Management of Sub- Engineer All India Radio Civil Construction Wing-C,

Sub-Division Katanga, Jabalpur (M.P.) is terminating the services of Sh. Ramcharit Sen S/o Sh. Ramsakha Sen

casual workman, w.e.f. 01.04.1989 is unjust and illegal and he is entitled to minimum compensation of 25,000/-

in lieu of all his claims from Management within 30 days from the date of publication of Award. Failing which

interest @6% from date of publication of this Award.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 09/05/2025

P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. GORAKHA NATH

YADAVA

Digitally signed by GORAKHA

NATH YADAVA

Date: 2025.06.24 15:27:35 +05'30'