3702 GI/2025

(4349)

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. 23]

नई ददल् ली, जून 15—जून 21, 2025, िजनवार/ज् येष् ठ 25—ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

No. 23]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 15—JUNE 21, 2025, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 25– JYAISTHA 31, 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

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 4 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1012.—केंद्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्ट्थान (अप्राजधकृत अजधभोजगयों की बेदखली) अजधजनयम, 1971

(1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत के राजृत्र, भाग-II, खंड 3, उृखंड (ii),

तारीख 30 जून, 1990 में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के जवत्त मंत्रालय, आर्थथक कायय जवभाग (बैंककग प्रभाग) की

अजधसूचना सं्‍यांक का.आ. 1752(अ), तारीख 12 जून, 1990 को उन बातों के जसवाय अजधक्ांत करते हुए, जजन्हें से

अजधक्मण से ृूवय दकया गया हज या करने का लोृ दकया गया हज, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्ट्तम्भ 2 में वर्थणत अजधकाररयों

को, उि अजधजनयम के प्रयोजन के जलए, सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया में संृदा अजधकारी के प ृ में जनयुि करती हज, जो उि

सारणी के स्ट्तम्भ 3 में यथाजवजनर्ददष्ट क्षेत्र के अधीन आने वाले सरकारी स्ट्थानों के संबंध में अृनी अजधकाररता की

स्ट्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर, उि अजधजनयम के द्वारा या अधीन संृदा अजधकारी को प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग और उस ृर

अजधरोजृत कतयव्यों का ृालन करेंगे।

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-11072025-264521

CG-DL-W-11072025-264521

4350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सारणी

क्. सं.

अजधकारी का ृदनाम

सरकारी स्ट्थानों के प्रवगय और अजधकाररता की स्ट्थानीय सीमाएं

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, अहमदाबाद

गुजरात राज्य तथा दादर और नगर हवेली तथा दमण और दीव संघ

राज्यक्षेत्र में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण

के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए

ृररसर।

2.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, भोृाल

मध्य प्रदेि राज्य में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक

जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर

जलए गए ृररसर।

3.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, चंडीगढ़

हररयाणा, ृंजाब राज्यों और चंडीगढ़, जम्मू-कश्मीर तथा लद्दाख संघ

राज्यक्षेत्रों में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण

के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए

ृररसर।

4.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, चेन्न्ई

तजमलनाडु, केरल राज्यों और ृुदुचेरी, लक्षद्वीृ और अंदमान और जनकोबार

द्वीृसमूह संघ राज्यक्षेत्रों में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के

प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके

जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ृररसर।

5.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, ददल्ली

जहमाचल प्रदेि, उत्तराखंड, राजस्ट्थान राज्यों और ददल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी

राज्यक्षेत्र में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण

के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए

ृररसर।

6.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, गुवाहाटी

असम, मेघालय, अप णाचल प्रदेि, मजणृुर, जमजोरम, नागालजण्ड, जसदिम

और जत्रृुरा राज्यों में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक

जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर

जलए गए ृररसर।

7.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, हजदराबाद

तेलंगाना, आंध्र प्रदेि और कनायटक राज्यों में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ

इंजडया के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या

उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ृररसर।

8.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, कोलकाता

ृजिमी बंगाल राज्य में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के

प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके

जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ृररसर।

9.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, लखनऊ

उत्तर प्रदेि राज्य में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक

जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर

जलए गए ृररसर।

10.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, ृटना

जबहार और झारखंड राज्यों में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के

प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके

जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ृररसर।

11.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

महाराष्ट्र (मुम्बई और थाने जजला के जसवाय) राज्य में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4351

इंजडया, ृुणे

बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके

द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ृररसर।

12.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, रायृुर

उड़ीसा और छत्तीसगढ़ राज्यों में अवजस्ट्थत तथा सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के

प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या उसके द्वारा या उसके

जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ृररसर।

13.

उृ-महाप्रबंधक,

सेंरल

बैंक

ऑफ

इंजडया, मुम्बई

महाराष्ट्र राज्य के मुम्बई और थाने जजला और गोवा राज्य में अवजस्ट्थत तथा

सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अधीन और से संबंजधत या

उसके द्वारा या उसके जनजमत्त ृट्टे ृर जलए गए ृररसर।

[फा. सं. 4/2/2013/बीओए-II]

अजनतेि कुमार, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 4th June, 2025

S.O. 1012.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) number. S.O.1752, dated the 12^th

June, 1990 published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, section 3, sub-section (ii) , dated the 30^th June, 1990, except as

respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the

officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below to be estate officers in the Central Bank of India for the purpose

of said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and the duties imposed on estate officers by or under the said

Act, within the local limits of their jurisdiction in respect of the public premises falling under area as specified in

column (3) of the said Table .

TABLE

S.

No.

Designation of officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central Bank of

India, Ahmedabad

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the State

of Gujarat and Union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and

Diu.

2.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central Bank of

India Bhopal

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the State

of Madhya Pradesh.

3.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central Bank of

India, Chandigarh

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the

States of Haryana, Punjab and Union territories of Chandigarh, Jammu and

Kashmir and Ladakh

4.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central Bank of

India, Chennai

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the State

of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Union territories of Puducherry, Lakshadweep

and Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

5.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central Bank of

India, Delhi

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the

States of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and National Capital

Territory of Delhi

6.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India,

Guwahati

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the

States of Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram

Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura.

4352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India,

Hyderabad

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the States

of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

8.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India,

Kolkata

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the State

of West Bengal.

9.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India,

Lucknow

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the State

of Uttar Pradesh

10.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India, Patna

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the States

of Bihar and Jharkhand

11.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India, Pune

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the State

of Maharashtra (except Mumbai and Thane District)

12.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India,

Raipur

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in the

States of Orissa and Chhattisgarh

13.

The Deputy General

Manager, Central

Bank of India,

Mumbai

Premises belonging to or taken on lease by, or on behalf of, and under the

administrative control of the Central Bank of India and situated in Mumbai

and Thane District of State of Maharashtra and the State of Goa.

[F. No. 4/2/2013-BOA-II]

ANITESH KUMAR, Under Secy.

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 17 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1013.—केन्द्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्द्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमािुल्क बोडय के अधीन जनम्नजलजखत

कायायलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों एवं कमयचाररयों ने जहन्दी का काययसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को

अजधसूजचत करती हज:

1. आयुिालय, सीमा िुल्क (आयात-I), मुंबई, अंचल-I

2. आयुिालय, सीमा िुल्क (आयात-II), मुंबई, अंचल-I

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

जिजिर िमाय, संयुि जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 17th June, 2025

S.O. 1013.—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 following offices under Central Board of

Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi:

1. Commissionerate of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai, Zone-I

2. Commissionerate of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai, Zone-I

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

SHISHIR SHARMA, Jt. Director (OL)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4353

जवदेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 12 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1014.—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 बगदाद मे^ेँ श्री रजव कुमार िमाय,सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी,को जून 12,

2025 से सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के प ृ में कांसुलर सेवाओं का जनवयहन करने के जलए अजधकृत करती हज।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(29)]

नबा कुमार ृाल, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2025

S.O. 1014.—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. Ravi Kumar Sharma,

Assistant Section Officer as Assistant Consular Officer in the Embassy of India, Baghdad to perform the consular

services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from June 12, 2025.

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025 (29)]

NABA KUMAR PAL, Director (CPV)

कार्थमक, लोक जिकायत तथा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्थमक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 27 मई, 2025

का.आ. 1015.—केंद्रीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंद्रीय अजधजनयम

25) की धारा 5 की उृधारा (1) सृरठत धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, अजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.(2डी)

सं. 71, ददनांक 15.03.2025 गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तजमलनाडु राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से

तत्कालीन उृायुि, सीमा िुल्क आयुिालय-VII (एयर कागो), चेन्नई तथा अब संयुि आयुि, वस्ट्तु एवं सेवा कर और

केंद्रीय उत्ृाद िुल्क के हजदराबाद जोन में ृदस्ट्थाजृत लोक सेवक सुश्री के. िर्थमला (कमयचारी आईडी. 8594) के जवप द्ध

प्राथजमक जांच/अन्वेषण के संचालन हेतु ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/13/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2025

S.O. 1015.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(2D) No. 71, dated 15.03.2025 Home

(Citizenship) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police

4354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Establishment in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu to conduct a preliminary enquiry / investigation against the

public servant Ms. K. Sharmila (Emp. Id. 8594), the then Deputy Commissioner at Customs Commissionerate-VII

(Air Cargo), Chennai, now, the Joint Commissioner posted at Hyderabad Zone of GST & Central Excise Directorate.

[F. No. 228/13/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1016.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री सेवांग नामग्याल, अजधविा को, गंगटोक, जसदिम के जविेष

न्यायाधीि, भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, के न्यायालय में ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन (केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा

संजस्ट्थत, मामला सं्‍या आरसी 2172023ए0012/सीबीआई/एसी-II नई ददल्ली, के अजभयोजन का और उि मामले से

उद्भूत दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का जवजध द्वारा स्ट्थाजृत दकसी अृील या ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में संचालन

करने हेतु, मामले का जनृटान होने तक या अगले आदेि तक, जो भी ृूवयतर हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक के प ृ में जनयुि

करती हज ।

[फा. सं. 225/12/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025

S.O. 1016.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Tsewang Namgyal, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of case number RC 2172023A0012/CBI/AC-II/New Delhi,

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

Prevention of Corruption Act, Gangtok at Sikkim and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of the said case

in any appellate or revisional court established by law, till the disposal of the case or until further orders, whichever

is earlier.

[F. No. 225/12/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

जवजध

और न् याय मंत्रालय

(जवधायी जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 12 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1017.—राष्ट्रृजत, राजभाषा जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उृजनयम (2) में दी गई ृररभाषाओं और

मानकों के अनुसार जवधायी जवभाग, जवजध और न्याय मंत्रालय के अजधकाररयों/कमयचाररयों द्वारा हहदी का काययसाधक ज्ञान

प्राप्त कर लेने के आधार ृर, इस जवभाग अथायत जवधायी जवभाग, जवजध और न्याय मंत्रालय को राजभाषा जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उृजनयम (4) के अधीन अजधसूजचत करते हैं।

[फा. सं. ई-11025/1/2023-रा.भा.(जव.जव.)]

डॉ. ब्रजेि कुमार हसह, संयुि सजचव

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Legislative Department)

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2025

S.O. 1017.—The President hereby notifies this Department, namely, the Legislative Department, Ministry of

Law and Justice, under sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages Rules, 1976 on the basis of the

officers/employees of the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice having been acquired a working

knowledge of Hindi, as per standards and definitions given in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Official Language

Rules, 1976.

[F. No. E-11025/1/2023-O.L.(L.D.)]

Dr. BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4355

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 16 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1018.—केंद्रीय सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खनीज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम मे उृयोग के अजधकार के आजयन)

अजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में, तजमलनाडु राज्य क्षेत्र के भीतर तक अजधजनयम

के अधीन, कोची सेलम ृाइृलाइन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड (केएसृीृीएल ) की कोची कोयम्बटूर सेलम एल ृी जी ृाइृलाइन

के जलए, केरल राज्य में सक्षम प्राजधकारी के कृत्यों का ृालन करने के जलए केएसृीृीएल ने प्रजतजनयुजि ृर का आ 1885

(अ ) ददनांक 11/06/2020 भारत के राजृत्र सं्‍या 1682 ददनांक 15/06/2020 के अंतगयत अजधसूजचत सक्षम प्राजधकारी

श्री ृी अजनलकुमार, जडप्टी कलक्टर, के स्ट्थान ृर श्री जेग्गी ृॉल, जडप्टी कलक्टर, जजनकी जनयुजि नोडल अजधकारी

कोची सेलम ृाइृलाइन प्रोजेक्ट कोयम्बटूर हज, को प्राजधकृत करती हज ।

यह अजधसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से लागू होगी ।

[फा. सं आर-12031/196/2017-ओआर-I/ई-19746]

िजि िेखर हसह, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 16th June, 2025

S.O. 1018.— in pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the petroleum and mineral pipelines (acquisition of

right of user in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Jeggy Paul, Deputy

Collector, in place of earlier notified competent authority Shri P Anilkumar, Deputy Collector Vide S.O. No. 1885 (E)

dated 11/06/2020 published in Gazette of India No. 1682 dated 15/06/2020 on deputation to Kochi Salem Pipeline

Private Limited (KSPPL), who is appointed as Nodal Officer for Kochi Salem Pipeline Project, to perform the

functions of the Competent authority, in the state of Kerala for Kochi Salem Pipeline Private Limited's Kochi-

Coimbatore-Salem LPG Pipeline under the said act.

This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R-12031/196/2017-OR-I/E-19746]

SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 21 मई, 2025

का.आ. 1019.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एयर इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सह

-

] मुंबई-Ids iapkV (

26/1999) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-11012/125/98-

-(

-I)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 21st May, 2025

S.O. 1019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Mumbai-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s.

Air India Ltd. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 25/03/2025.

[No. L-11012/125/98– IR (C-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

4356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT.INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE CGIT -26 of 1999

Parties:

For the first party management : Mrs. Geeta Raju, Adv

For the second party workman : Absent.

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 11^th day of Feb‘ 2025.

AWARD

1.. The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order dated 24.5.2012 passed in exercise of

the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute

Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:

―Whether the action of the management of M/s.Air India Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri

S.V.Godambe, w.e.f.01.12.1997 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?‖.

Perusal of the record reveals that the second party workman has not put his presence before this Tribunal since

08.09.2022. This shows that the workman is not interested in pursuing his case. Accordingly, the matter is dismissed

for want of prosecution.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 27 मई, 2025

का.आ. 1020.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सह

–

]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभय सं्‍या

/

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-22013/01/2025-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 27th May, 2025

S.O. 1020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D. No. 01/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 05/05/2025.

[No. L-22013/01/2025 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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.

L. C. APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2021

PARTIES: Sarat Kora

Vs.

1. General Manager, Sodepur Area, ECL

2. Agent, Chinakuri Mine No. II, ECL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4357

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

16.04.2025

AWARD

1.

Instant application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by Sarat Kora, ex-

employee of Chinakuri Mine No. II of Eastern Coalfields Limited, praying for setting aside the impugned order of

dismissal and reinstatement in service.

2.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Chinakuri/Sodepur Group of Mines, Eastern

Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed up today for appearance of the workman and his evidence, in default,

the case is to be dismissed. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative appeared along with Sarat Kora, ex-employee of

Eastern Coalfields Limited.

3.

It is submitted that though this application has been filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, which relates to recovery of amount due to the workman from the employer, this application has been

wrongly filed seeking relief for setting aside order of dismissal of Sarat Kora and for his reinstatement.

4.

The L. C. Application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is ‗not pressed‘ by Sarat

Kora. Considered. I find that this case has wrongly been filed by the petitioner against the General Manager, Sodepur

Area and the Agent, Chinakuri Mine No. II. Relief sought for in this case is for setting aside order of dismissal is not

maintainable unless an Industrial Dispute is referred to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 or an application is filed under sub-section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on failure of

reconciliation before the Conciliation Officer. The L. C. Application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. Let an Award be drawn up in light of my above findings.

Hence,

ORDERED

Let an Award be passed in view of the above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi under Section 33C(4) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1021. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

]चंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV (

30/2021) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-23012/01/2021-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-LabourCourt, Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Ms. BBMB and their workmen received by the Central Government on 16/05/2025.

[No. L-23012/01/2021– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

4358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, H.J.S.

ID No.30/2021

Registered on:-21.01.2022

General Secretary, Nangal Bhakra Mazdoor Singh (INTUC), H.O-

Nangal Township, Labour Recreation Centre (BBMB) Near DD Block

(Water Tank), Tanki, Ropar (Punjab)-14001.

....... Workman/ Unions

Versus

1. The Chairman Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Mark,

Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.

2.The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project,

Sundernagar-175038.

3.The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam, BBMB, Nangal Township, Distt.

Ropar (Punjab)-140001.

4.The Chief Engineer, Beas Dam, BBMB Talware Township, Distt.

Hoshiarpur (Punjab)-146001.

…...Management

AWARD

Passed On:-05.05.2025

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/01/2021-IR (CM-II) dated 04.01.2022, under clause (d)

of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

" Whether action of the M/s Bhakra Beas Management Board in not giving the post of Hoist Operator

instead of Jr. Hoist Operator as there was no such post of Jr. Hoist Operator in the BBMB Regulation

1994 to S/ Shri Malkiat Chand S/o Shri Prem Singh, Ajay Kumar S/o Shri Hukam Chand and Hans

Raj S/o Shri Sonju Ram joined at Sunder Nagar under Chief Engineer, BSL Project, BBMB Sunder

Nagar, Mandi (HP) on 21.05.1997, 13.05.1997 and 15.07.1997 respectively is just, fair and legal? If not, to what

relief is the contract workers entitled?"

1. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for cross examination of Workman.

Through emails of applicants- Malkiat Chand, Hans Raj, two withdrawal applications on their behalf have been

received in the office of this Tribunal with a prayer that they do not want to initiate the proceeding further and they

may be permitted to withdraw the case. Similarly one copy of withdrawal application on behalf of co-applicant Ajay

Kumar has been provided by Sh. Sandeep Sharma (Law Officer) appearing on behalf of BBMB. In the said

application also the applicant Ajay Kumar had prayed for withdrawal of the case.

2. The present Industrial Dispute has been registered on the basis of reference No.L-23012/01/2021 (IR(CM-II)) dated

04.01.2022 received from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India and presently the case was running at the

stage of cross examination of workmen. Since prayer on behalf of all the applicants has been made for withdrawal of

the case and closing the proceeding through above referred applications received before this Tribunal. The proceeding

in the present case is closed and the ID Case is disposed of as withdrawn, without any adjudication on merit in terms

of reference of the Labour Ministry.

3. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4359

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1022.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

]चंडीगढ़-I ds iapkV (

39/2019) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-23012/27/2019-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Ms. BBMB and their workmen received by the Central Government on 16/05/2025

[No. L-23012/27/2019– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer,

Chandigarh.

ID No. 39/2019

Registered On: 21.06.2019

Sukh Ram S/o Sh. Nant Ram, Village Dhar PO Chuhar Police Station, Tehsil

Sundernagar, Mandi (HP)-175001.

...........Workman

Versus

1.The Chairman Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Mark, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160001.

2.The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175018.

.......Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 05.05.2025

Present Industrial Dispute was registered on the basis of reference order received from the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-23012/27/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 31.05.2019, under clause (d) of

Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called

the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

―Whether the action of management of BBMB is not accepting the demand of Shri Sukh Ram S/o Shri Nant

Ram for deeming/ considering him in continuous service upto age of superannuation and resultantly entitled

for consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to

and from which date?‖

1.During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing affidavit/ adducing

evidence by workman but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the

management that workman is not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

2. Perused the file and it is found that since 01.03.2024 till now none is appearing on behalf of Workman. Several

opportunities have already been given to the workman to file affidavit/ adduce evidence but of no use. It denotes that

the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice

4360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

except to pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-

prosecution of workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.

3. Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1023.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj एजडिनल डायरेक्टर सेंरल गोवेमेंट हेल्थ स्ट्कीम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdaksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-

सह

-

]चंडीगढ़-I ds

iapkV (

129/2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं.

-42012/136/2014-

-(डीयू)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Ms. Additional Director, Central Govt. Health Scheme and their workmen received by the Central Government

on 15/04/2025

[No. L-42012/136/2014-IR (DU)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH.

Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam (H.J.S.)

ID No. 129/2014

Registered on 18.11.2014

Jindal S/o Sh. Satpal C/o Sh. R.K. Gautam, H.No.1460, Sector 61,

Chandigarh-160061.

...........Workman

Versus

The Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme,

Fourth Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh-160009.

........Respondent

Sh. R.K. Gautam AR for Workman

Sh. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar AR for Management

Judgment reserved on 21^st March, 2025

Judgment Pronounced on 3^rd April, 2025

JUDGMENT/ AWARD

1.Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/136/2014-IR(DU) dated 11.11.2014, under clause (d) Sub-

Section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), had

referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:- ―

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4361

Whether the action of the management of Additional Director, Central Govt. Health Scheme, Chandigarh in

terminating the services of Sh. Jindal S/o Sh. Satpal w.e.f. 02.06.2014 is valid, just and legal? If not to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?

2. The case of Workman/Petitioner- In pursuance of above Reference the workman filed his statements of claim

which unfolded following facts revealing the present industrial dispute. The applicant-workman was appointed as

computer operator on 07.03.2008 on daily wages basis by the Management after taking interview in a regular process

of selection in response to the public notice for appointment. He was posted in the office of Central Government

Health Scheme, Sector 34, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred as CGHS) and later on, in the year of 2011 the office was

shifted to Kendriya Sadan Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh. The applicant worked continuously without any break

from 07.03.2008 and management had passed various orders for extension in his service from time to time w.e.f.

07.03.2008 up to 2014 and his services were illegally terminated on 02.06.2014 without passing any written order.

The applicant-workman had rendered 240 days of his service before terminating his services illegally by the

management. The applicant workman is a Muster Roll employee and was engaged on daily wage basis and the

attendance of the applicant-workman was recorded alongwith the other staff namely Sh. R.K. Sikroria, V.P. Singh,

Gurtej Singh, Deepak Chandra, Yog Raj Mahajan and Dharam Singh of the Department. The applicant was also

performing the duties of LDC and field works as assigned by the management from time to time and other

miscellaneous works. It is stated that the work and conduct of the applicant-workman was very good and no

complaint or explanation was taken against the workman within his tenure of service w.e.f. 07.03.2008 to 31.05.2014.

There was a Sunday on 01.06.2014 and from 02.06.2014 the applicant was not permitted to perform his duty. That the

junior persons namely Sh. Deepak and Mrs. Babita Rana and various other persons were retained at the time of

terminating the service of the workman by way of unfair labour practice. The workman was working under the

supervision of management from more than six years. The impugned order directly hit by the provisions of Section

25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That the work of the

workman is of permanent in nature. No notice, no pay in lieu of notice, no charge sheet was issued to the workman

and no enquiry was conducted and no retrenchment compensation was given to the workman. During the conciliation

proceedings of demand notice workman was willing to join the duty but management did not agree to do so. The

workman has become over age and could not get job anywhere and he is not gainfully employed. The workman was

not paid his salary as per the D.C. rates nor as per the rates notified by the Central Government in the official Gazette.

The workman had worked for the month of May, 2014 but the management only paid Rs.9342/- for 18 days only

through a cheque No. 699911 dated 03.09.014 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings. The workman also

prepared a calculation sheet of illegal deductions from the salary on the basis of D.C. Rates including the salary of

13 days for the month of May, 2014. The management had withheld the amount of Rs.1,43,446.84/- as per calculation

chart to which workman is entitled. That on 05.02.2015 an amount of Rs.16,608/- was paid as arrears of salary for the

period from November, 2013 to January, 2014 which was accepted by the workman. Since 2008 no regular

appointment was made by the management but the management has kept Ex. Servicemen from Defence and retiree

from State Govt./ Central Govt. on contractual basis by way of unfair labour practice. That the persons namely Sh.

Dharam Singh (Sweeper) and Sh. Vijay Pal Singh (UDC) are above 60 years and retained in service in the

Management and the regular sanctioned post is lying vacant and same is not filling as per rules and has adopted noble

method to keep person on contract. The management is competent to make regular appointment in the Department for

all types of posts as per circular dated 13.09.203 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.

The termination of services of applicant-workman w.e.f. 02.06.2014 is illegal unjust, unwarranted, arbitrary and in

violation of mandatory provisions of ID Act which may be set aside and workman may be reinstated with back wages

by adjudicating the reference in favor of workman.

3. The case of Respondent-Management-In response to notice issued the Respondent-Management appeared

and filed its written statement/ reply to the claim petition of workman. According to case of management CGHS

Department is not an Industry as defined in Section 2 (j) of Industrial Dispute Act. It is performing duty of Welfare of

Health of the Employees of Central Government which is a Sovereign Function. The function of department is not

connected with generation of revenue for Industrial purpose and there is no work profile where any kind of labour

force is employed. Providing Health Services does not constitute an Industry. The further case of the Respondent has

been that the reference of Ministry was challenged before Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court by filing CWP

No.14047 of 2015 which was disposed of by the Hon‘ble High Court and it was observed in its order dated

20.07.2015 that labour court had to decide the question/ objection viz-a-viz the management being an Industry or not.

According to respondent the basic condition for raising an Industrial Dispute- Employer-Employee relationship is

missing in present case. It is stated by respondent in its written statement that averments made in claim petition of

workman Jindal are misleading and not correct. It has been pointed out giving details of the sanctioned staff position

and working staff positions in Paragraph 4 of the written statement. According to respondent there was no sanctioned

post for computer operator. Additional Director has no power of creation of any post. The claimant has never been

appointed and assigned any type of duties as is being claimed by him as a computer operator. It is also stated that date

of birth of claimant is 17.09.1980and he had already completed 28 years when he got registered himself with

Regional Employment Exchange, Chandigarh. It is stated that claimant used to come with Ex-Additional Director as

his personal peon and was working for the same and was never engaged in any kind of official work of the

4362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Department. The workman Jindal was never appointed on any contract basis or on any other sanctioned post. It is also

stated that no advertisement or any interview was ever issued for appointment to the post of computer operator and no

such appointment letter was issued and given to complainant. It is specifically stated that the office of respondent had

got no power of any financial or any kind of sanction for the post of computer operator and if any payment or any

record of attendance was marked it was understanding between the then Ex-Additional Director and the claimant and

the office of respondent had no relationship with the workman and his engagement if any was purely personal to the

then Ex-Additional Director. According to respondent payment made were from the head of miscellaneous Financial

Powers assigned to Additional Director. In further reply the respondent has completely denied the claim of workman.

According to respondent Ms. Babita Rani was engaged through outsourcing by Ministry of Information and

Technology, National Informatic Center, Delhi not by the Department and her salary was also been paid by the

outsourcing agency not by this office. Deepak Chandra an Ex-Servicemen was contractually appointed on the post of

Peon against vacant sanctioned post arise due to resign of Sh. MS. Negi the Ex-Peon through Zila Sainik Board. The

department never gave any assurance to the workman for appointment or regularization and also had not debarred him

to apply for any other job. There is no sanctioned post of computer operator and no public notice/ advertisement was

given by these office, no interview was conducted, no appointment letter was issued. According to respondent the

claim petition of workman Jindal deserves to be dismissed.

4.Issues: On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 25.04.2018 to be

decided in the present case-

i.Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee

between the parties?

ii.Whether the management does fall within the definition of the

industry as defined under Section 2-J of the Act. Whether the

reference is not legally maintainable?

iii.In terms of reference.

5.During hearing of the case the workman Jindal himself has got examined

as Witness No.1 and during his evidence certain documents were brought

on record and were marked as Exhibits as follows:

Sr.

No.

Documents

Exhibit

1.

Copy of True photocopies of details of wages paid to the workman for the

month of February 2014 and March 2014.

Ex. W-1 &

2.

Copy of Order of Ministry of Health & Welfare dated 07.04.2014

Ex. W-2

3.

Copy of part paid salary to workman on

Ex. W-3

16.09.2014

4.

Copy of Failure Report dated 26.09.2014

Ex. W-5

5.

Copy of Attendance record for the

period from 01.06.2013 to 30.04.2014

Ex. W-6 to

Ex.W-16

6.

Copy of Appointment Letter of Sh.

Mohan Singh

Ex. W-17

7.

Copy of Appointment Letter of Sh.

Deepak Chandra

Ex. W-18

8.

Copy of Letter dated 24.11.2015 for

implementation of Judgment dated

10.03.2015 of CWP No.4196 of 2014

Ex.W-19

9.

Copy of Civil Writ Petition vide CWP

No.4196 of 2014

Ex.W-20

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4363

6.During hearing of the case of the For Management one witness namely Gurteg Singh, LDC (CC), CGHS,

Chandigarh got examined as Management Witness No.1 and during his evidence certain documents were brought on

record and were marked as Exhibits as follows:

Sr.

No.

Documents

Annexure/

Exhibits

1.

Copy of Order dated 11.11.2014

Ex. M-1

2.

Copy of Order dated 20.07.2015

Ex. M-2

3.

Copy of Letter dated 16.11.2001

Ex. M-3

4.

Copy of Letter dated 06.05.2015

Ex. M-4

5.

Copy of Resignation Card 28.03.2008

Ex. M-5

6.

Copy of Order 28.02.2014

Ex. M-6

7.

Copy of Letter 06.02.2014

Ex. M-7

8.

Copy of Letter 27.08.2014

Ex. M-8

9.

Copy of Circular dated 06.05.2015

Ex. M-9

10.

Copy of Rules

Ex. M-10

11.

Copy of Guidelines 07.04.2016

Ex. M-11

12.

Copy of Memorandum dated

13.01.1981

Ex. M-12

13.

Copy of Office Order dated 28.08.2017

Ex. M-13

14.

Copy of Report dated 30.08.2016

Ex. M-14

15.

Copy of Office Order 15.04.2014

Ex. M-15

16.

Copy of Office Order 31.07.2014

Ex. M-16

17.

Copy of Office Order 31.07.2014

Ex. M-17

18.

Copy of Salary/ Wages Register for the

Period of July 2013-2014

Ex. M-18

19.

Copy of Attendance Record for the

period of 2013-15

Ex. M-19

7. Arguments on behalf of Parties: It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-

workman that the workman worked continuously without any break since 07.03.2008 till 31.05.2014 but all of sudden

he was not permitted to perform his duties from 02.06.2014. The workman had already completed 240 days of service

and thus his termination is against the provisions of Section 25 F, ID Act as neither he has been paid any retrenchment

compensation nor any notice was given before terminating his services. It is also argued that the management has kept

fresh persons on daily wages which is against the provision of Section 25 H of ID Act. It is further argued that other

employees Junior to workman specifically Sh. Deepak, Ms. Babita Rana have been retained and this way the order of

termination is further violative of provisions contained in Section 25 G of the ID Act. It is argued that termination of

services is an example of unfair labour practice. No opportunity was given before terminating his services, no

enquiry, no charge sheet has been served and no retrenchment compensation has been paid or offered. It is also argued

that the specific contention raised by workman vide Paragraph 7 of his claim petition that the nature of engagement of

workman was permanent and same is still in existence, has not been denied in the written statement/ Reply of

Management. It is also argued that only in order to evade legal responsibility and to justify illegal termination of

services management has taken a wrong plea that workman was personal staff of the then Additional Director and that

the respondent CGHS Department is not an Industry. It has been argued that if workman was personal staff why and

how payment has been made from management account. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for Workman that the

witness of management Sh. Gurteg Singh had contradicted himself in the cross examination as he stated against his

own case and therefore, he was not trustworthy or credible. It is also argued that deliberately the management

withheld a relevant documents which were asked by filing an application and a false pretext was taken by the

management that those documents are weeded out. The action on the part of management in illegally terminating

4364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

services of workman is against the settled principle of law and same is liable to be corrected by ordering the

management to reinstate the workman on the same post with back wages and all consequential reliefs. Ld. Counsel for

the workman has placed his reliance on following case laws reported as- 1978 (2) SCC 213 titled as Bangalore Water

Supply Versus A. Rajappa & Ors, 2005 (5) SCC 1 titled as State of U.P. Versus Jai Bir Singh, 2008 (13) SCC 248

titled as Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy Versus Radhey Sham, 2009 (5) SLR 329 titled as Municipal Council Samana

Versus Radha Rani & Ors. (Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court), 2010 (3) SCC 497 titled as Anoop Sharma

Versus Executive Engineer Public Health Division, 2012 (4) S.C.T. 645 titled as The Principal Chief Conservator of

Forest & Anr. Versus Ram Karan & Anr., 2017 (2) CLR 733 titled as HP State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Versus Presiding Judge & Anr.

8. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party (CGHS) Chandigarh submitted that a false claim has been set up

by the workman without any supporting document according to him there was no sanction post of Computer Operator

and at no point of time any public notice of vacancy against computer operator post was ever advertised or any

selection process conducted. The workman has not filed any document showing any interview letter or his selection or

appointment to the said post. It is further argued that the calculation sheet for claiming certain amount is self created

sheet prepared by workman and that cannot be relied upon no payment has been made by the CGHS Department

officially to workman. It is also argued that opposite party CGHS Department is not an Industry. It is argued that in

the replication the workman vide his paragraph 2 of replication has contradicted his own claim statement when he

states that his name was sponsored by Employment Exchange, whereas in the claim petition he has stated that he was

selected in a regular process of selection against the computer operator post. It is argued that there cannot be

comparison between other staffs namely Ms. Babita as said Babita is an outsourced employee and her salary is paid

by I.T. Ministry, while arguing on a document which shows deferment of payment of workman alongwith other

employees it has been pointed out that the letter is only a noting or nothing more than that the documents are not

official documents and these have not been proved by calling the authority It is also argued that even the document

purported to be muster roll attendance is not official one and it is self created which is denied by the opposite party.

According to Ld. Counsel for the aforesaid party (the Management) a letter dated 07.04.2014 which is Ex.W-3 was

got signed by Additional Director as a result of certain concealment and misrepresentations by officials which upon

detection of misrepresentation was cancelled vide another letter dated 15.04.2014 (Ex.M-15). According to Ld.

Counsel the order dated 15.04.2014 was not challenged anywhere whereby the appointment made by misleading the

Additional Director was cancelled. It is also pointed out that the claim of workman is not based upon appointment

letter dated 07.04.2014 and even the employee who had mislead in getting signed that letter dated 07.04.2014 was

also dispensed with the official duty on 31.07.2014. It has been also argued that the Exhibit M-18 series are pay bill

documents and these documents are related to those employees who were working at the relevant time at CGHS

Department and in these documents name of workman Jindal does not figure. So, it is clear that the workman Jindal

was neither an employee of the Department nor he was at any point of time was given appointment. The Ld. Counsel

has argued that merely because a reference has been sent for an adjudication before this Tribunal does not mean that

there was an appointment of the workman and only termination aspect has to be examined, according to Ld. Counsel

a reference has to be decided on each and every factual aspect including whether the workman was an employee of

the Department at any point of time or not, according to Ld. Counsel since there has been no sanctioned post for

Computer operator there was no question of any appointment given to workman on this post. It is also argued that

document Ex.M-5 shows that a renewal with exchange employment office of the workman was done and if the

workman was already employed as is being claimed there was no occasion to renewal of registration with exchange

employment office. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has placed his reliance upon following decisions- 2001 (9)

SSC 713 titled as State of Gujrat Versus Pratamsing Narsinh Parmar, 2005 (5) SCC 1 titled as State of U.P. Versus Jai

Bir Singh, CWP-13557 of 2019 titled as Satbir Singh Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Ors., 2004 (8) SSC

195 titled as Municipal Corporation Faridabad Versus Siri Niwas, Civil Appeal No.4468 of 2005 titled as Ranip

Nagar Palika Versus Babuji Gabhaji Thakore and Ors., 2016 (1) SCT 392 titled as Satinder Kumar Sharma Versus

State of Haryana and Ors., 2006 (4) SCT 284 titled as Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University Lucknow U.P. Versus

Akhilesh Kumar Khare and Anr., 2022 (1) SCT 626 titled as Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation Versus Kalawati Pandurang Fulzele, 1992 (4) SCC 432 Union of India Versus Deep Chand Pandey.

According to Ld. Counsel for the management no case has been made for any relief as is prayed in the claim petition

and the present reference may be decided againstthe workman and his claim may be rejected.

FINDINGS

9. As noted hereinabove three issues- on the point of relationship of employer-employee, on the point whether

opposite party falls in the definition of Industry and the terms of reference itself were framed vide order dated

25.04.2018. The issue No.I and Issue No.III are interconnected and therefore these are taken together for adjudication

first. As per the claim statement of workman he was appointed as a computer operator and has worked as such since

07.03.2008 on daily wage basis. The workman has claimed that his appointment was on the basis of a regular process

of selection after taking his interview and this was done in pursuance of a public notice of appointment but it may be

noticed that in the entire proceeding the workman has failed to produce any letter of appointment or any interview call

letter or any public advertisement to the post of computer operator which was duly applied and a regular selection

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4365

process was conducted by the opposite parties CGHS Department. A document which has been marked as Ex.W-3

produced on behalf of workman is a letter dated 07.04.2014 which shows that Sh. Jindal (the workman) alongwith

one Sh. Yog Raj Mahajan were engaged w.e.f. 01.04.2014 for the work of computer operator and bill clerk

respectively, in pursuance of Deputy Commissioner order dated 18.07.2013. Barely after a week of this letter another

letter dated 15.04.2014 has been issued by the office of Additional Director CGHS, Chandigarh cancelling order

dated 07.04.2014, which has been brought on the record on behalf of management as Ex.M-15. This letter shows that

the letter dated 07.04.2014 (Ex.W-3) was got issued because the establishment Branch Incharge (RKS) mislead the

additional director without placing of relevant record as there was no sanctioned post of Bill Clerk and Computer

Operator in the office of Additional Director CGHS, Chandigarh. Consequent upon letter dated 15.04.2014 the

services of Sh. Y.R. Mahajan and Sh. Jindal were came to an end from the month of May, 2014. The establishment

Branch was also directed not to put any file without supporting document. The case of management has been that in

the Chandigarh Office no post for computer operator were sanctioned and the workman Sh. Jindal was not an

employee of the CGHS Office. The workman Sh. Jindal was a personal staff of Ex. Additional Director and if any

payment or record of attendance has been marked these are only an interse agreement and understanding between the

workman and the Ex. Additional Director the claimant. The workman could not produce any document which may

show that post of Computer Operator is a sanctioned post and he had participated in selection process when the said

post was advertised. In the replication against the written statement the workman has himself contradicted in

Paragraph 2 when he states that he was engaged as Computer Operator since 07.03.2008 on daily wage basis after his

name was sponsored by Employment Exchange. In the main claim petition selection through a regular process of

selection after holding any interview is stated. These two contradictory statements creates doubt so far as claim of

initial appointment of workman Sh. Jindal is concerned. Remarkably after appointment through official letter dated

07.04.2014 and its cancellation vide another letter dated 15.04.2015 the order of cancellation was never challenged

anywhere. It may be understood that certain financial powers are vested with the post of additional director and he is

empowered to pay some amount exercising his miscellaneous financial power. Only because some payment have

been received by Workman Sh. Jindal through Ex. Additional Director, he cannot be treated as appointee of the

CGHS Office. The CGHS Office is a public office run and controlled by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and

any appointment in that office should always be done through public advertisement, otherwise the appointment shall

be considered as back door entry. In the case in hand it appears that because of acquaintance of Sh. Jindal with Ex.

Additional Director of the office he made his route to the office and is claiming so called appointment but without any

supporting document. Although in support of engagement and duty performed by workman some of the document

which are marked as Ex.W-1 , Ex. W-2, Ex.W-6 to Ex,.W-16 have been brought on record on behalf of workman.

Ex.W-1 & Ex.W-2 are two documents are certain notings which shows that due to paucity of funds named staff

appointed on daily wages were paid for less amount than to what they entitled but these two documents are

vehemently denied by the opposite party on the ground that this is neither official bill for payment nor it has been sent

anywhere and it is only official note created by the office which is not authentic document. So far as Ex.W-6 to

Ex.W-16 are concerned these are those documents which appears extract of Muster Roll in respect of daily attendance

but none of this document appears signed by office incharge or by the workman Sh. Jindal and only a remark of some

verification is there but who was the person who verified these attendance is not clear. These documents only show

that Mr. Jindal the workman has been given some illegitimate support by these documents although there is no proof

for his initial appointment on the post as he is claiming. The two other documents which have been brought on record

as Ex.W-17 and Ex.W-18 or those letters issued to one Sh. Mohan Singh and Sh. Deepak Chandra intimating them

appointment on contractual basis after holding interview. These two letter cannot be helpful in any way to the

workman Jindal as Jindal could not produced any such letter of appointment on the basis of which he was given

appointment in the year 2008 as he claims. It further appears that some of the employees who were appointed on

contractual basis had filed Writ Petition before Hon‘ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon‘ble High Court has

directed consideration of regularization of those contractual staff as per relevant rules but remarkably in the list of

petitioners there are seven persons but the workman Jindal has not been anyone of those 7 petitioner or there is no

record to show that he had filed any separate Writ Petition before the Hon‘ble High Court claiming his regularization.

Had Mr. Jindal being also one of the appointee, akin to other petitioners, certainly he would have filed Writ Petition

alongwith 7 petitioners but there is no such claim on behalf of workman Jindal. On the prayer of workman Sh. Jindal

management has produced documents related to payment of salary to the employees of CGHS Office which are

marked as Exhibit for M-18 Series in these pay bills name of workman Mr. Jindal does not appear, meaning thereby

alongwith other employees he was not getting any remuneration from the CGHS Office. A part from it one document

being Ex.M-5 is also produced on the record and this document is not denied by workman. This document Ex.M-5 is

copy of registration card of workman Sh. Jindal with Regional Employment Exchange, Chandigarh. It shows that

initial registration was in the year 2002 and same has been renewed on 28.03.2008. If workman Sh. Jindal was

already appointed as Computer Operator on 07.03.2008, there appears no need to get the registration renewed on

28.03.2008 as normally a person who is employed need not to get renew his registration with employment exchange

office. Apart from it I have already mentioned that in the replication to the written statement of management the

workman has contradicted his claim by stating that he got the job as sponsored by Employment Exchange but again

no document is filed supporting this claim. If this was the fact there was no need to get the registration with

employment exchange as renewed which is done only for an unemployed person recommended by Regional

4366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exchange Office. A point of not providing any opportunity before terminating the services has been raised

vehemently on behalf of workman but in the present case the workman has failed to prove that infact he was an

employee of the opposite party CGHS Office and in above view of the matter it is held that there was no relationship

of employer and employee between the workman and the opposite party. If a person is not appointed there is no

question of his termination and thus it is held that the workman Sh. Jindal is not entitled for any relief.

10. While dealing the Issue No.I & III, it has been held that there was no relationship between employee and

employer between the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief and therefore, issue No.II as to whether the

opposite party CGHS Office comes within definition of Industry or not need not to be decided separately.

11. In the light of discussion made hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Reference

No. L-42012/136/2014-IR(DU) dated 11.11.2014 is decided against the workman Sh. Jindal and it is held that he is

not entitled for any relief.

12.It is therefore-

ORDERED

That the present ID No.129/2014 titled as Jindal Vs CGHS arising out of Reference No. L-42012/136/2014-IR(DU)

dated 11.11.2014 is dismissed and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

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

for publication.

Dated: 03.04.2025 B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1024.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बीबीएमबी ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-

सह

-

]चंडीगढ़-2 ds iapkV

(

81/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-23012/160/2018-vkbZ-vkj-lh-एम-II]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Ms. BBMB and their workmen received by the Central Government on 22/04/2025

[No. L-23012/160/2018-IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh

(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).

ID No.81/2018

Registered on:-11.12.2018

Smt. Sunki Devi Wd/o Sh. Devi Singh and Others (LRs of the deceased workman Devi Singh S/o Sh. Negi

Ram) R/o Village Durghat, PO Jejwin, Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

------------- Applicants

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4367

Versus

1. The Chairman, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh, 160019.

2. The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Baord, BSL Project, Sundernagar, 175038.

-----------Respondents

Present:-

Mr. S C Gupta, AR for Workman.

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Law Officer for respondent no.1 and 2.

Award : 03.04.2025

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/160/2018(IR(CMII) dated 22.11.2018 under clause (d) of

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

following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of Smt. Sunki Devi &

Others Wd/o Late Devi Singh for declaringhisretrenchment/ termination as illegal and considering

him in continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential

benefits is legal, just and valid. If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late

workman are entitled to and from which date?"

1.

The matter is fixed for filing affidavit by the applicants since 16.10.2024. However, the same was not

filed despite availing several opportunities. Today also, no affidavit of applicants has been filed.

2.

Since the applicants, despite availing several opportunities, have not filed their affidavit to prove their

case against the respondents, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly, 'No

Claim Award' is passed in the present reference.

3.

Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the ID Act

for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1025.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लू सी एल d

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

-

सह

-

] नागृुर ds iapkV (

11/2019-20) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-22012/37/2019-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2019-20) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 28/04/2025.

[No. L-22012/37/2019– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

4368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/11/2019-20 Date: 07.04.2025.

Party No.1:

The Area General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Chandrapur Area,

Chandrapur(MS)- 442 401.

:

The Sub Area Manager,

Durgapur Open cast Mines,

Western Coalfields Ltd., Post: Urjanagar,

Distt.- Chandrapur-442401.

Versus

Party No.2:

Shri Pravin Homdas Upare

Ex-security guard (Trainee),

Bhatadi, Post: Bhatadi, Tah & Distt.

Chandrapur(MS)- 442401.

AWARD

(Dated: 07^th 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 Western coalfields Limited and their workman, Shri

Pravin Homdas Upare, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/37/2019-IR (CM) dated 08.05.2019, with the

following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of WCL through the Area General Manager, Chandrapur

Area Chandrapur and the Sub Area Manager WCL, Durgapur Open Cast Mines, Post. Urjanagar,

Distt. Chandrapur in terminating the services of the applicant Shri Pravin Homdas Upare, Ex-security

guard w.e.f. 18.12.2017 is just, fair and legal? If not whether the demand of applicant that he should

be reinstate on the post of trainee security guard with continuity of services alongwith the full back

wages from the date of termination i.e. 18.12.2017 is just fair and legal? If yes to what relief the

applicant is entitled to?‖

2.

On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Pravin Homdas Upare, (―the workman‖ in short) filed the

statement of claim and the management of Westen coalfields Limited (―party no.1‖ in short) filed the written

statement. Workman filed his rejoinder as well as evidence on affidavit.

3. Meanwhile, today learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application for taking the case on today‘s board.

Though, the case was listed on 13.06.2025, but looking the facts and circumstances of the case and being

compromise in between the parties the case is taken on today‘s board and considered for passing the award.

Both parties have settled the dispute amicably in terms and conditions mentioned in the memo of

compromise signed by both the parties.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

―The reference is answered in favour of the workman in terms of the settlement mentioned in the

memo of compromise. The memo of settlement dated 07.04.2025 is made part of the award.‖

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4369

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1026.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लू सी एल d

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

-

सह

-

] नागृुर ds iapkV (

19/2019-20) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-22012/60/2019-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2019-20) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s.

WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 28/04/2025

[No. L-22012/60/2019– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/2019-20

Date: 03.04.2025.

Party No.1:

The Mines Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Saoner Mine No.2, Tah. Saoner, Distt

Nagpur-441107

V/s.

Party No.2:

1) Shri Suresh Purushottam

R/o WCL Saoner Mine, Shakti Nagar,

Qtr. No. 92/6, Tah. Saoner,

Distt – Nagpur – 441107.

2) The General Secretary,

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU),

Branch: Saoner, Nagpur Area, Tah. Saoner,

Nagpur - 441107

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 Western Coalfields Limited and their workman Shri

Suresh Purushottam for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/60/2019 (IR(CM-II)) dated 10.07.2019, with the

following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Saoner Mine No. 2, Tah. Saoner,

Distt. Nagpur in dismissing the service of the workman Shri Suresh Purushottam is just fair &

legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

4370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since

21.11.2019. No statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner till date. No other evidence has been adduced by

the petitioner to prove his case. 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 action of the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Saoner Mine No. 2, Tah. Saoner, Distt.

Nagpur in dismissing the service of the workman Shri Suresh Purushottam is just fair & legal. The workman is

not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1027.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लू सी एल d

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

-

सह

-

] नागृुर ds iapkV (

36/2016-17) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-22012/81/2016-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36-2016-17) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 28/04/2025

[No. L-22012/81/2016– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/36/2016-17

Date: 01.04.2025.

Party No.1:

1) The General Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Wani North Area of WCL, Post-Ukni,

Tehsil-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal,

Yavatmal (M.S)-445304.

2) The Sub Area Manager,

Pimpalgaon O/c Mines, Wani North Area of WCL

Post-Ukni, Tehsil-Wani, Distt. Yavatmal,

Yavatmal (M.S)-445304.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri Surendra Nilkant Khutemate,

Ex-Employee, R/o Pimpir(De), Tahsil-Bhadrawati,

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur (M.S)-442902.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4371

AWARD

(Dated: 01^st 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 Western Coalfields Limited. and their workman Shri

Surendra Nilkanth Khutemate for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/81/2016 (IR(CM-II)) dated 07.03.2017, with

the following schedule:- ―

―Whether the action of the Management of WCL through its Sub Area Manager, Pimpalgaon

O/c Mines, Wani North Area, Western Coalfields Limited, Post Ukni, Tah: Wani, Dist: Yavatmal in

termination of service w.e.f. 26/12/2000 and demand in reinstatement with continuity of service

alongwith back wages of the Applicant Shri Surendra Nilkanth Khutemate, Ex-Worker is fair, just or

legal ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖

2. Case is called out. Shri Pushkar Ghare, Learned Counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent

today in Court, which is taken on record. But none is present on behalf of petitioner. Only today, Learned Counsel for

the respondent is present before the Court. Earlier before, since 23.03.2020, both the parties are not responding and

attending the Court. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively and

petitioner has filed his affidavit in support of the contents of claim. But petitioner has not come before the Court to

support the contention alleged in the statement of claim as well as affidavit filed by him. No other evidence has been

filed by the petitioner till today. Petitioner is not attending the Court since long back. 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 WCL through its Sub Area Manager, Pimpalgaon O/c Mines, Wani

North Area, Western Coalfields Limited, Post Ukni, Tah: Wani, Dist: Yavatmal in termination of service w.e.f.

26/12/2000 is fair, just & legal and demand in reinstatement with continuity of service alongwith back wages of

the Applicant Shri Surendra Nilkanth Khutemate, Ex-Worker is unfair, unjust or illegal. The workman is not

entitled to any relief.

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

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1028.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लू सी एल d

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

-

सह

-

] नागृुर ds iapkV (

04/2023-24) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-22012/28/2023-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2023-24) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s.

WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 28/04/2025.

[No. L-22012/28/2023– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

4372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/04/2023-24

Date: 07.04.2025.

Party No.1:

The General Manager,

Majri Area of WCL,

PO – Kuchna, Tah,

Bhadrawati, Distt.

Chandrapur – 442503.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

WCL Hq Complex, Talankhedi Road,

Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001.

AWARD

(Dated: 07^th 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 WCL, and their applicant Shri. Kuldip S Gadge Son

of deceased employee Sangita S. Gadge for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/28/2023 (IR(CM-II)) dated

31.03.2023, with the following schedule:-

―Whether action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited in not providing dependent

employee to Shri Kuldip S. Gadge Son of deceased employee Sangita S. Gadge, Ex.Clerk is legal and

justified . If not, what relief the union/applicant is entitled to?‖

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Petitioner has filed application under Section 36(4) of the ID Act,

which is pending for disposal. But none is present to press on this application. Therefore, this application dated

15.05.2023 is hereby rejected being not pressed. Petitioner as well as respondent have not filed their statement of

claim and written statement respectively till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. 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 action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited in not providing dependent employee to

Shri Kuldip S. Gadge Son of deceased employee Sangita S. Gadge, Ex.Clerk is legal and justified. The union/

applicant is not entltled to any relif.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 9 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1029.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj डब्लू सी एल d

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

-

सह

-

] नागृुर ds iapkV (

01/2023-24) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-22012/25/2023-

-(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4373

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025

S.O. 1029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 01/2023-24) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

M/s. WCL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 28/04/2025

[No. L-22012/25/2023– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/01/2023-24

Date: 17.04.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The General Manager,

Wani Area of WCL,

PO-Urjagram, Distt.

Chandrapur – 442406.

2. The General Manager,

Wani North Area of WCL,

PO- Bhalar, Tah. – Wani,

Distt. – Yavatmal – 445304.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,

(INTUC), B-143, WCL Durgapur Colony,

PO – Urjanagar, Chandrapur – 442404.

AWARD

(Dated: 17^th 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 WCL, Wani Area, and their workman Shri. Jatindar

Singh, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/25/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 28.03.2023, with the following schedule:-

―Whether action of the management of WCL (General Manager, Wani Area) in terminating services

of their workman Shri Jatindar Singh, Ex-General Mazdoor is legal and justified . If yes, what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to?‖

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since

31/01/2024. 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 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 action of the management of WCL (General Manager, Wani Area) in terminating services of their

workman Shri Jatindar Singh, Ex-General Mazdoor is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

4374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1030.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

डीजल लोको आधुजनकीकरण वक्सय ृरटयाला 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; चंडीगढ़- I ds iapkV (142/2018) izdkf”kr djrh

gSA

[सं.

-41012/31/2018-

-(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025

S.O. 1030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 142/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Diesel Loco

Modernization Works Patiala and their workmen.

[No. L-41012/31/2018– IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, Presiding Officer, Chandigarh.

ID No.142/2018

Registered On: 22.01.2019

Jagdev Singh R/o H.No.272/10, Aman Nagar, Opp. Railway, DMW, Patiala (Punjab)-147001.

...........Workman

Versus

1.

The Chief Personnel Officer, Diesel Loco Modernization Works, Patiala (Punjab)-147001.

2.

Chief Administrative Officer (R), Diesel Loco Modernization Works, Patiala (Punjab)-147001.

........Managements

AWARD

Passed On: 23.05.2025

Present Industrial Dispute was registered on the basis of reference order received from the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-41012/31/2018-IR(B-I) dated 24.12.2018, under clause (d) of Sub-

Section (1) sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the

Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

―Whether the action of the management of Diesel Loco Modernization Works, Patiala in termination

the workman Shri Jagdev Singh w.e.f. 23.08.2010 is legal, fiar and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from which date?‖

1.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for filing replication by

workman but none is responding on behalf of workman. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the management that

workman is not turning up since long and prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition.

2.

Perused the file and it is found that since 29.10.2024 till now none is appearing on behalf of Workman.

Several opportunities have already been given to the workman for filing replication but of no use. It denotes that the

workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to

pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for the non-prosecution of

workman. File after completion be consigned in the record room.

3.

Let copy of this award be sent to Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4375

नई ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1031.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

एफ

.

ओ

.

एल

.

जडृो

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

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

II

ds iapkV (a45/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं.

12025/01/2025-

-(बी-I)-66]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025

S.O. 1031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.45/2017) 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 F.O.L. Depot and

their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR (B-I)-66]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 45/2017

Sh. Shiv Singh & 3 Ors. vs. F.O.L. Depot and Others

Sh. Shiv Singh & 3 others

Through Hindustan Engineering & General Mazdoor Union

(Regd. 4479) Head Office: D-2/24, Sultanpuri, Delhi

…Applicants/Claimants

Versus

1. Union of India,

Through Secretary

Ministry of Defence, South Block

New Delhi-01

2. Director General

Army Supply Corporation (A.S.C.)

Sena Bhawan, P.O. Delhi Headquarters

New Delhi-11

3. Commandant, 210, F.O.L. Depot,

A.S.C., Delhi Cantt, New Delhi

… Managements/respondents

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh. Kailash Jonwal, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent:

Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, Ld. AR.

Award

30.04.2025

Item No.- 33

I.D. No. 45/2017

30^th April 2025

Present:

The claimants in person.

Sh. Atul Bhardwaj, Ld. AR for the management.

All the claimants have filed their affidavits stating that they don‘t want to proceed further with the present

case, as they have been reinstated in their jobs by the management. Their statements have been recorded separately.

4376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Record perused. The present application has been filed on behalf of Sh. Shiv Singh & 3 other claimants

under section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the claimants alleged that their services were

terminated by the management during the pendency of the case bearing I.D. no. 71/2013 titled Sh. Titu Ram &

39 Ors. vs. Ministry of Defense & Ors.

Record perused. It is noted that an award had been passed in the main I.D. no. 71/2013. The AR for the

management admitted that they have filed a writ petition challenging the said award. He also admitted that the

claimants have been reinstated in their jobs after six years.

In view of the statements on record, the application stands dismissed as withdrawn. A copy of this award is

sent to the appropriate government for notification, as required under section 17 of the ID act 1947. The file is

consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated 30.04.2025

नई ददल्ली, 11 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1032.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सह

–

नंबर 1, धनबाद ds iapkV (

/

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.

-20012/73/2010-

-(सी. एम-I)]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th June, 2025

S.O. 1032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No.1, DHANBAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management

of BCCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 10/06/2025.

[No. L-20012/73/2010 – IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d)& (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference Case No. 21/2011

Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL, Kusunda, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Smt. Sanchita De, Ld. Advocate.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:- Coal

Dated 30/05/2025

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

No.L-20012/73/2010-(IR(CM-I)) dated 05/04/2011 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of P.B. Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Organizing Secretary, Rashtriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4377

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of management of Bhagandh Colliery of M/s BCCL in not regularizing Sri

Amresh Kumar Singh as Accountant is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman

areentited?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/73/2010-(IR(CM-I)) dated 05/04/2011 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 21 of 2011 was registered on 25.4.2011 and thereafter

the notices were sent to the parties with a direction to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant

documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. After issuance of notice, though none appeared from both sides previously but Smt. Sanchita De, Ld. Advocate

on 30.05.2025 appeared from the side of the employer and furnished the death certificate of the workman Amresh

Kumar Singh.

4. On perusal of the Xerox copy of death certificate of the workman Amresh Kumar Singh it transpires that the

workman has died on 03.11.2024.

5. It further transpires that the relief as per the reference is personal in nature and therefore the case cannot be

proceeded with due to the death of the workman and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case deserves to be

dismissed.

7. Hence,

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the above reference case.

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

New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 12 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1033.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मेससय ददनेि कुमार स्ट्वजन जसक्योररटी एजेंसी; मेससय एसआईएस जसक्योररटी एजेंसी; मेससय बीृीसीएल के

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कान्ू चरण ृाइकराय के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक

अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-23/2020) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,

प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 12.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.

-30012/2/2020-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2025

S.O. 1033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s. Dinesh Kumar Swain, Security Agency; M/s. SIS Security Agency; M/s. BPCL and Shri Kanhu

Charan Paikaray which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.06.2025.

[No. L-30012/2/2020-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-LabourCourt,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 23/2020

Date of Passing Order – 10^th March, 2025

Between :-

1. M/s. Dinesh Kumar Swain, Security Agency,

HIG-194, Kanan Vihar, Patia, Phase-2,

Chanasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Odisha – 751 031.

4378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. M/s. SIS Security Agency, K-9A, Kalinga Vihar,

Post – Patrapada, P.S. Khandagiri, Khurda,

Odisha – 751 019.

3. The Manager (Operation),

M/s. BPCL, LPG Filling Plant,

Industrial Estate, Khurda, Odisha – 752 057

…

1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

Shri Kanhu Charan Paikaray,

S/o. Sh. JudhistiraPikaray, At. Kumar Khatia,

Post – Jatni, Dist. Khurda, Odisha – 752 050.

…

2^nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

None.

…

For the 1^st Party-Managements.

None.

…

For the 2^nd Party-Workman.

ORDER

In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide order No. L-30012/2/2020 – IR(M), dated 22.07.2020 under clause (d) of

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

under the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s. Dinesh Kumar Swain, Security Agency, Contractor of

BPCL, LPG Plant, Industrial Estate, Khurda by not redeploying Shri Kanhu Charan Paikaray, Security

Guard in his old assignment and without adhering to Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and/or

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

2.

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

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

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

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

3.

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

4.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the 2^nd Party-Workman on 05.09.2023 for appearance

and for filing of statement of claim. Neither the postal article sent to the 2^nd Party-Workman, referred to above, was

received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services remained unserved in the period, referred to

above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above notices were served upon the 2^nd Party-

Workman. Despite service of the notice, the 2^nd Party-Workman opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on its behalf. Thus, it is clear that the 2^nd Party-Workman is not interested in adjudication of

the reference on merits.

5.

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

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

6.

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

7.

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

Act, 1947, for publication.

Dictated &Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 12 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1034.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससय नारायणी जमनरल्स; मेससय ृेंगुइन रेहडग एंड एजेंसीज जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सुंदरगढ़ माइंस

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4379

एंड रांसृोटय वकयसय यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-77/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 12.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.

-26011/12/2018-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2025

S.O. 1034.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 77/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to M/s. Narayani Minerals; M/s. Penguin Trading & Agencies Ltd. and Sundargarh Mines &

Transport Workers Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 12.06.2025.

[No. L-26011/12/2018-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,

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

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 77/2018

Date of Passing Order – 10^th March, 2025

Between :-

1. M/s. Narayani Minerals, Contractor,

C/o. Raikela& Tantra iron Mines of

M/s. Penguin Trading & Agencies Ltd.,

At. Raikela, Po. Dengula, District – Sundargarh (Odishha).

2. The Director, M/s. Penguin Trading & Agencies Ltd.,

Raikela& Tantra Iron Mines, At. Raikela,

P.O. Dengula, Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha.

…

1^st Party-Managements.

(And)

The General Secretary,

Sundargarh Mines & Transport Workers Union,

At./Po. Koira, Dist. Sundargarh – 770 043.

…

Managements.

Appearances:

None

…

Applicant-Workman.

None

…

For the Managements.

In the present case, a reference was received from the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour New Delhi vide order No. L-26011/12/2018 – IR(M), dated 30.10.2018 under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

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

following schedule:-

4380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether the action of the management of M/s. Naaraayani Minerals, contractor of M/s. Penguin Trading &

Agencies Ltd. at Raikela and Tantra Iron Mines in refusing employment to the workman Shri Gura Munda

is proper, legal & justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

2.

Though the 2^nd Party-Union has not appeared before the Tribunal but statement of claim has been filed on

behalf of his behalf on 18.12.2019.

3.

The case of the 2^nd party-Union as per the statement of claim is as follows:-

That the disputant Sri Gura Munda joined as a Driver under M/s. Narayani Minerals a Contractor of M/s.

Penguin Trading & Agencies Ltd. with effect from 27.05.2015. He has completed 240 days work in each calendar

year from 27.05.2015 to 25.10.2017, but because of his involvement in union activities he was refused employment

verbally with effect from 25.10.2017 by the Managements. He was neither served with any charge-sheet nor the letter

of termination by the Management. After his termination he approached the Management through Union several

times, but the Managements have not considered the request. Thereafter the Union approached the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Rourkela and on failure of the conciliation proceedings the present reference has been sent

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

He has prayed to answer the present dispute in his favour by passing an award with direction of his

reinstatement into service and for payment of full back wages.

4.

The 1^st Party-Management No. 1 & 2 have appeared and took several adjournments for filing of written

statements, but they have not filed their written statements.

5.

When the case was posted for filing of written statement by the Managements the disputant-workman

appeared on 12.06.2024 and filed a petition with a prayer to drop the proceeding as he is not interested to proceed

with the case and to pass necessary orders in closing the case.

6.

Now in this case there is nothing on record except the statement of claim filed on behalf of the 2^nd party-

workman, so the workman has failed to prove his own case.

7.

In view of such the reference is answered against the 2^nd party-workman

8.

A copy of this order is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of

the I.D. Act, 1947. File is consigned to record room.

Dictated &Corrected by me.

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 12 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1035.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; ृंजाब एक्स-सर्थवसमजन कॉृोरेिन; हरहृदर ृाल हसह जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र

के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सुखदेव हसह के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1,

चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-19/2020) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 12.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-70]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2025

S.O. 1035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour

Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Bharat

Petroleum Corporation Ltd.; Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation; Harpinder Pal Singh Security Agency and

Shri Sukhdev Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 12.06.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-70]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जून 21, 2025/ज् येष् ठ 31, 1947

4381

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam.

ID No.19/2020

Registered On:-29.12.2020

Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o Village Bathuha, Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur-148034.

...........Workman

Versus

1.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Marketing Division Kandla, Jind Road, Jind Orad, Sangrur, Punjab

148001 through its Depot Manager.

2.

Punjab Ex-Servicemen Corporation (PESCO) SCO 89-90, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160022 through its

Director.

3.

Harpinder Pal Singh Security Agency, Office: Cabin No.1, 2^nd Floor SCO 830, NAC, Manimajra,

Chandigarh (U.T.)-160101 through its Managing Director.

........Respondents

AWARD

Passed On:-23.05.2025

1.

The workman Sh. Sukhdev Singh has directly filed statement of claim under Section 2-A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter called the Act), with a prayer to reinstate the workman with back wages.

2.

During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal the case was fixed for submitting service report

of respondent No.3 by Workman but workman is not responding from several dates which denotes that the workman

is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merits.

3.

Since the workman has neither put his appearance since long i.e. from 01.11.2024 till 19.03.2025 and nor he

has led any evidence to prove his cause against the management as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice except to

pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, no claim award is passed in the present case for non-prosecution of the case.

File after completion be consigned in the record room.

4.

Let copy of this award be sent to CentralGovernment for publication as required under Section 17 of the

ID Act, 1947.

B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 12 जून, 2025

का.आ. 1036.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार कमांड गजस एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री चदाराम ईश्वर राव के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-59/2015) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 12.06.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं.

-30012/19/2015-आईआर(एम)]

ददलीृ कुमार, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th June, 2025

S.O. 1036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 59/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to Command Gas Agency and Sri Chadaram Eswara Rao which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 12.06.2025.

[No. L-30012/19/2015-IR(M)]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

4382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 21, 2025/JYAISTHA 31, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 24^th day of April, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.59/2015

Between:

Sri Chadaram Eswara Rao,

D.No.38-40-68/1m,

Main Road, Marripalem,

Visakhapatnam - 530018.

….. Petitioner

AND

1.

The Commanding Officer,

INS Circars, Naval Base (Post),

(Chief Patron and President of Command

Gas Agency-II, 104 Area)

Visakhapatnam – 530 014.

2.

The Officer-in-Charge,

Command Gas Agency No.II,

Sri Vijayanagar Colony, 104 Area,

Marripalem Post,

Visakhapatnam – 530 018.

…. Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Rapeti Srinivasa Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent: Sri D. Ramesh, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-30012 / 19/ 2015 -IR(M) dated 21.7.2015

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

the management of INS Circars, Naval Base (Post) and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Command Agency-II, Sri Vijayanagar Colony, 104 Area,

Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Shri Chadaram Eswara Rao, Ex-Clerk is legal and justified?

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

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 59/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

The workman submits that he was appointed as clerk at Command Gas Agency-II, 104 Area, Visakhapatnam under

management and control of commanding officer being conducted an interview on 28.6.2000 and selected by duly

construed selection committee on 1.7.2000 on an Honorarium of Rs.l800/- per month. Ever since then he has been

worked uninterruptedly under various officers stood posted as in-charge command gas agency-ll, 104 area,

Visakhapatnam straining every nerve of him for the efficient administration and courted not even a simple warning.

The Command Gas Agency -II, 104 Area Visakhapatnam have got its own standing orders and in pursuance of which

the Petitioner had also been given an appointment order on dt. 01-07-2000. Further, it is submitted that the nature of

duties concerned are, 1. Booking orders from customers, 2. preparation of bills, 3. Assigning delivery schedule to

delivery boys with instructions from Manager of Command Gas Agency-ll, 4. receiving collection from delivery

boys, 5. Performing bank transaction, 6. Depositing cash in bank jointly by manager, 7. preparing closing balance of