4443 GI/2025
(5195)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजिक
WEEKLY
सं. 27]
नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 13—िुलाई 19, 2025, िजनवार/आषाढ 22—आषाढ़ 28, 1947
No. 27]
NEW DELHI, JULY 13—JULY 19, 2025, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 22–ASHADHA 28, 1947
इस भाग में जभन् न ृष् सं् ा िी िाती िज जिससे दक ि ृष क संकलन के प ृ में र ा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भागII— ण् ड 3—उृ- ण् ड(ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राल ों (रक्षा मंत्राल को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्राल
(जवत्ती सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1315.—भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम अजिजन म, 1956 (1956 का 31) की िारा 4 द्वारा प्रित्त
िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, केन्री सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, भारती िीवन बीमा जनगम (एलआईसी) के प्रबंि जनिेिक श्री
आर. िोराईस्ट्वामी (िन्म जतज : 29.8.1966) को एलआईसी के मु् का यकारी अजिकारी और प्रबंि जनिेिक (सीईओ
और एमडी) के ृि ृर का यभार ग्रिण करने की तारी से तीन वषय की अवजि के जलए अ वा 62 वषय की आ ु प्राप्त करने
की तारी (अ ायत 28.08.2028) तक, अ वा अगले आिेिों तक, िो भी ृिले िो, वेतन मजट्ररक्स के स्ट्तर-17 [रु.
2,25,000/- प्रजत माि (जन त)] में जन ुि करती िज ।
[फा.सं. ए-11011/06/2024-बीमा-I]
िीरि भास्ट्कर, उृ सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-02082025-265186
CG-DL-W-02082025-265186
5196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2025
S.O. 1315.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act,
1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri R. Doraiswamy (DoB:29.08.1966), Managing
Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) as Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director (CEO &
MD), LIC for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge or till the date of his attaining the age of
62 years (i.e. 28.08.2028), or until further orders, whichever is the earliest, in Level 17 of the Pay Matrix [Rs.
2,25,000/- per month (fixed)].
[F. No. A-11011/06/2024-Ins.I]
DHEERAJ BHASKAR, Dy. Secy.
वाजणज् और उद्योग मंत्राल
(उद्योग संवियन और आंतट्ररक व्याृार जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 4 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1316.––केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म 1976 के जन म 10
के उृ-जन म (4) के अनुसरण में उद्योग संवियन और आंतट्ररक व्याृार जवभाग के जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ायल ों,
जिनके 80% से अजिक कार्मयकों ने हिंिी का का यसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को अजिसूजचत करती िज:
1. प्रजतजलप् जिकार का ायल ,
बौजिक संृिा भवन, प्लॉट सं.-32, सेक्टर -14, द्वारका, नई दिल्ली-110078
2. व्याृार जचह्न रजिस्ट्री,
जनिाम ृजलेस, जद्वती बहुतल का ायल भवन, 7वां तल, 234/4, आचा य िगिीि चंर बोस रोड,
कोलकाता - 700020
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2022-हिंिी:]
एन. के. वािवा, सं ुि सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade)
New Delhi, the 4 th July, 2025
S.O. 1316.––In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the official language (Use for official purposes of
the Union) Rules 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under control of Department for
Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade whose more than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
1. Copyright Registry
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Plot No.- 32,Sector - 14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078
2. Trade Marks Registry,
Nizam Palace, 2nd M.S.O. Building,7th Floor, 234/4,A.J.C.Bose Road,Kolkata - 700 020
[F. No. E-11017/3/2022-Hindi:]
N.K.WADHWA, Jt. Secy.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5197
उृभोिा मामले, ाद्य और सावयिजनक जवतरण मंत्राल
( ाद्य और सावयिजनक जवतरण जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 3 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1317.––केन्री सरकार रािभाषा (संघ के िासकी प्र ोिनों के जलए प्र ोग) जन म, 1976 के जन म
10 के उृ जन म (4) के अनुसरण में उृभोिा मामले, ाद्य और सावयिजनक जवतरण मंत्राल ( ाद्य और सावयिजनक
जवतरण जवभाग) के प्रिासजनक जन ंत्रणािीन जनम्नजलज त का ायल ों, जिनके 80 प्रजतित ा उससे अजिक कमयचारीवषन्ि ने
जिन्िी का का यसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जल ा िज, को रािृत्र में अजिसूजचत करती िज:-
क्र.सं.
अजिसूजचत दकए िाने वाले का ायल
1.
केन्री भंडारण जनगम, क्षेत्री का ायल , गुवािाटी
2.
गुण जन ंत्रण प्रकोष्ठ, भोृाल
3.
भारती अनाि संच न प्रबंिन एवं अनुसंिान संस्ट् ान, लुजि ाना
[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-हिंिी(321924)]
रािेन्र कुमार, सं ुि सजचव
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2025
S.O. 1317.––In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the administrative control of
the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Food & Public Distribution), whereof
80% or more staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
S. No.
Offices to be notified
1
Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office, Guwahati
2
Quality Control Cell, Bhopal
3.
Indian Grain Storage Management & Research Institute, Ludhiana
[F. No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi(321924)]
RAJENDER KUMAR, Jt. Secy.
ृेरोजल म और प्राकषजतक गजस मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 9 िुलाई, 2025
का. आ. 1318.––ृेरोजल म और जनि ृाइृलाइन (भूजम में उृ ोग के अजिकार का अजिग्रिण) अजिजन म
1962 (1962 का 50), (इसके बाि उि अजिजन म किा िाएगा) की िारा 2 की उृिारा (क) के अनुसरण में, केंर
सरकार उि अजिजन म के अिीन नीचे िी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लज त व्यजि को कॉलम (2) में उजल्लज त
क्षेत्रों के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लज त इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रचालनरत ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइनों के
जलए सक्षम प्राजिकारी के का ों को करने के जलए अजिकषत करती िज।
व्यजि का नाम एवं ृता
क्षेत्राजिकार का क्षेत्र
ृेरोजल म ृाइृलाइनों का नाम
(1)
(2)
(3)
श्री कुंिन
प्रचालन प्रबंिक,
जबिार और झार ंड
राज्
बरौनी कानृुर ृाइृलाइन
ृटना मोजतिारी बजतालृुर ृाइृलाइन
5198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड,
ृूवी क्षेत्र ृाइृलाइन्स, बरौनी
मोजतिारी अमले गंि ृाइृलाइन
30'' िजल्ि ा बरौनी ृाइृलाइन
ृारािीृ िजल्ि ा बरौनी मेनलाइन
ृारािीृ िजल्ि ा बरौनी लूृलाइन
ृारािीृ िजल्ि ा बरौनी मोजतिारी ृाइृलाइन
बरौनी ृटना ृाइृलाइन
12'' िजल्ि ा बरौनी ृाइृलाइन
इससे ृूवय एस.ओ. सं् ा 1355 दिनांक 05 जसतम्बर 2023 के अंतगयत भारत के रािृत्र में दिनांक 09 जसतम्बर
2023 को प्रकाजित जबिार और झार ंड राज् में इंजड न ऑ ल कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए ृिले अजिसूजचत सक्षम
प्राजिकारी श्री राहुल चौिान, अनुरक्षण प्रबंिक, को डी- नोट्रटफ़ाइड समझा िाए।
ि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की तारी से प्रभावी िोगी।
[फा. सं. आर-11025(II)/239/2017-ओआर-I/ई-13892]
िजि िे र हसंि, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 9th July, 2025
S O. 1318.––In Pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act), the Central
Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the functions
of the Competent authority under the said Act for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in respect of areas mentioned in
column (2) for its operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in Column (3) of the said Table:
Name & Address of Person
Area of
Jurisdiction
Name of Petroleum Pipeline(s)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Shri Kundan,
Operations Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Eastern Region Pipelines,
Barauni
Bihar and
Jharkhand State
Barauni Kanpur Pipeline
Patna Motihari Baitalpur Pipeline
Motihari Amlekhganj Pipeline
30’’ Haldia Barauni Pipeline
Paradip Haldia Barauni Mainline
Paradip Haldia Barauni Loopline
Paradip Haldia Barauni Motihari Pipeline
Barauni Patna Pipeline
12’’ Haldia Barauni Pipeline
Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in State of Bihar and Jharkhand,
Shri Rahul Chauhan, Maintenance Manager, vide SO No 1355 dated 05th September 2023 published in the Gazette of
India dated 09th September 2023, may be de-notified.
The Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.
[F.No. R-11025(II)/239/2017-OR-I/E-13892]
SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.
वाजणज् एवं उद्योग मंत्राल
(वाजणज् जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 4 माचय, 2025
का. आ. 1319.––केन्री सरकार, जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म, 1963 (1963 का 22)
की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के सा ृट्र त जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म 12, के
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5199
उृजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए मेससय कोटेकना इंस्ट्ृेक्िन इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, बारजबल-िोडा
िाईवे, ृोस्ट्ट- सेरेंडा, वा ा- बारजबल, क् ोंझर, ओजडिा-758035 (जिसे एतद्ृश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िा ेगा), को
इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषय के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल की िासकी रािृत्र में प्रकाजित
भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्ियष्टा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 की अजिसूचना की सं॰का.आ.
3975 के तित प्रकाजित अजिसूचना में उृाबि अनुसूची में जवजनर्ियष्ट जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-।, अ ायत लौि अ स्ट्क और
मैंगनीि अ स्ट्क के जन ायत से ृूवय जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन ृारािीृ ृत्तन, गोृालृुर ृत्तन त ा िामरा ृत्तन में उि
जनि और अ स्ट्क के जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुृ में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ायत् :
(i) ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। का जन ायत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की
ृिजत की िााँच करने के जल े जन ायत जनरीक्षण ृट्ररषि् द्वारा जनजमत्त अजिकाट्रर ों को ृ ायप्त सि ोग और सिा ता प्रिान
करेगी;
(ii) ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में ा जवजनर्ियष्ट् अृने का ो का जन्ृािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और
गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण) जन ायत जनरीक्षण ृट्ररषि द्वारा सम -सम ृर, जलज त प ृ में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबि िोंगी ।
[फा.सं. के-16014/1/2025 - जन ायत जनरीक्षण]
जसिा य मिािन, सं ुि सजचव
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
(Department of Commerce)
New Delhi, the 4th March, 2025
S.O. 1319.––In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963) read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government now recognizes, M/s Cotecna Inspection India Private Limited,
Barbil-Joda Highway At/PO- Serenda, Via- Barbil, Keonjhar, Odisha-758035 (hereinafter referred to as the said
agency), as an agency for three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official
Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group - I, namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore, as specified in the
Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the
Official Gazette vide number S.O.3975 dated 20th December, 1965 respectively, before export of the said Minerals
and Ores at Paradip Port, Gopalpur Port and Dhamra Port, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council on this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and
Ores – Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965;
(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification, shall be bound by such
directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give, in writing from
time to time.
[F. No. K-16014/1/2025 - Export Inspection]
SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 15 िुलाई, 2025
का. आ. 1320.––केन्री सरकार, जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म,1963 (1963 का 22)
की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के सा ृट्र त जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एवं जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म 12, के
उृजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मेससय टीसीआरसी क्वाजलटी कंरोल्स एल एल ृी, वाडय नंबर 09,
िोहल्डंग ृट्ररसर नंबर एन-33/27, िुगायचजक न् ू कॉलोनी, िुगायचजक, ृूवय मेदिनीृुर, ृी.ओ. - िुगायचजक, ृी.एस. - िुगायचजक,
जृन कोड - 721602, ृजश्चम बंगाल (जिसे एतद्ृश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िाएगा) को इस अजिसूचना के रािृत्र में
प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषय की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल , भारत सरकार की रािृत्र में प्रकाजित अजिसूचना
दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 सं् ा का.आ. 3975 में उृाबि अनुसूजच ों में जवजनर्ियष्ट जनि और अ स्ट्क (समूि-।)
अ ायत्:, लौि अ स्ट् क और मैंगनीि अ स्ट्क के जन ायत से ृूवय जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन िजल्ि ा ृत्तन, में उक् त जनि
और अ स्ट् क का जनरीक्षण करने के जलए एक अजभकरण के रुृ में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ायत् :
5200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i)
ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। का जन ायत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की
ृिजत की िााँच करने के जल े जन ायत जनरीक्षण ृट्ररषि् द्वारा नाजमत अजिकाट्रर ों को ृ ायप्त सि ोग और सिा ता
प्रिान करेगी; और
(ii) ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में ा जवजनर्िय् ट अृने का ो का जन् ृािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण और
गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण) जन ायत जनरीक्षण ृट्ररषि द्वारा सम -सम ृर, जलज त प ृ में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबि िोंगी ।
[फा. सं. के-16014/3/2025- जन ायत जनरीक्षण]
जसिा य मिािन, सं ुि सजचव
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2025
S. O. 1320.––In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s TCRC Quality Controls LLP, Ward No 09,
Holding Premises No. N-33/27, Durga Chak New Colony, Durga Chak, Purba Medinipur, P.O.- Durga Chak,
P.S. – Durga Chak, Pin Code - 721602, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as said agency), as an agency for a period
of three years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals
and Ores (Group-I), namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of
the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975, dated
the 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Haldia Port subject to the following
conditions, namely: -
(i)
the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and
Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and
(ii)
the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such
directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing from time
to time.
[F.No. K-16014/3/2025- Export Inspection]
SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 15 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1321.––केन्री सरकार, जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) अजिजन म,1963 (1963 का 22)
की िारा 7 की उृिारा (1) के सा ृट्र त जन ायत (गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण एवं जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1964 के जन म 12, के
उृजन म (2) द्वारा प्रित्त िजि ों का प्र ोग करते हुए, मजससय एसिीएस इंजड ा प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िरवािा नंबर: प्लॉट
नंबर 63, एईृी, ऑटोनगर, जविा ृत्तनम-530012, आंध्र प्रिेि (जिसे एतद्ृश्चात उि अजभकरण किा िाएगा) को इस
अजिसूचना के िासकी रािृत्र में प्रकािन की तारी से तीन वषय की अवजि के जलए, वाजणज् मंत्राल , भारत सरकार
की िासकी रािृत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की अजिसूचना के सा अनुसूची में जनर्ियष्ट दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर, 1965
की अजिसूचना सं॰ का.आ. 3975 त ा दिनांक 20 दिसम्बर,1965 की अजिसूचना सं. का.आ.3978 के तित प्रकाजित
अजिसूचना में उृाबि अनुसूजच ों में जवजनर्ियष्ट जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-।, अ ायत लौि अ स्ट्क, मैंगनीि अ स्ट्क, फेरो
मैंगनीि त ा बाक्साइट और समूि –II, अ ायत बजराइट्स के जन ायत से ृूवय जनम्नजलज त ितों के अिीन जविा ाृट्नम
ृत्तन, गंगावरम ृत्तन, काकीनाडा ृत्तन और कष्णाृट्टनम ृत्तन में उक् त जनि और अ स्ट् क का जनरीक्षण करने के जलए
एक अजभकरण के रुृ में मान् ता िेती िज, अ ायत् :
(i)
ि अजभकरण, जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-। का जन ायत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 त ा जनि और अ स्ट्क समूि-
।। का जन ायत (जनरीक्षण) जन म, 1965 के जन म 4 के अिीन जनरीक्षण की ृिजत की िााँच करने के जल े जन ायत जनरीक्षण
ृट्ररषि् द्वारा नाजमत अजिकाट्रर ों को ृ ायप्त सि ोग और सिा ता प्रिान करेगी; और
(ii)
ि अजभकरण, इस अजिसूचना में ा जवजनर्िय् ट अृने का ो का जन् ृािन करने के जलए, जनिेिक (जनरीक्षण
और गुणवत्ता जन ंत्रण) जन ायत जनरीक्षण ृट्ररषि द्वारा सम -सम ृर, जलज त प ृ में, दिए गए जनिेिों से आबि िोंगी ।
[फा. सं. - के -16014/6/2025-जन ायत जनरीक्षण]
जसिा य मिािन, सं ुि सजचव
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5201
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2025
S.O. 1321.––In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality
Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and
Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s SGS India Private Limited, Door No.: Plot
No. 63, AEP, Autonagar, Visakhpatnam-530012, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as said agency), as an
agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette,
for the inspection of Minerals & Ores, Group-I, namely, Iron Ore, Manganese Ore, Ferro Manganese and Bauxite,
and Group-II, namely, Barytes as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in
the Ministry of Commerce, published in the official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975 dated 20th December, 1965 and
S.O. 3978 dated 20th December, 1965 respectively, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam
Port, Gangavaram Port, Kakinada Port and Krishnapatnam Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -
(i)
the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export
Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals
and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores – Group II (Inspection)
Rules, 1965; and
(ii)
the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such
directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing
from time to time.
[F.No.- K-16014/6/2025- Export Inspection]
SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्राल
नई दिल्ली, 6 माचय, 2025
का.आ. 1322.––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;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
नंबर 1, िनबाि ds
iapkV (
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-20012/217/2001-
(सी.एम-I)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 6th March, 2025
S.O. 1322.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 200/2001) 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 03/03/2025.
[No. L-20012/217/2001 – 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: No. 200/2001
Employer in relation to the management of Block-II Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
5202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appearances:
For the Employers :- None.
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 12/02/2025
AWARD
By Order No.L-20012/217/2001-IR(C-I) dated 18/09/2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether non regularisation of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh by the management of B.C.C.L, Block II
area on the post of attendance clerk is justified, proper and legal? If not to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled and from what date?”
2. This reference is received on 11/01/2001 by this Tribunal in which the Joint General Secretary, Rashtriya
Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad had been advised to submit statement of claim along with relevant
document before the Tribunal within fifteen days of receipt of the reference but the union/workman did not
appear before the Tribunal. However after receipt of the reference, both parties were noticed but neither the
union/workman nor the management appeared before the Tribunal. Thereafter notice of the workman/union
returned with endorsement “insufficient address”. Now Case is pending since 01/11/2001 and workman/union
as well as management is not appearing before Tribunal. so, it is felt that workman/union has lost its interest in
this matter. Hence “No Claim” Award is passed. Communicate.
D.K. SINGH, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2025
का.आ. 1323.––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
(
110/2018) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-23012/24/2018-
(सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन.एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 9th June, 2025
S.O. 1323.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/2018) 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-23012/24/2018-IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.
ID No.110/2018
Registered on:- 07.01.2019
Smt. Ganga Devi Wd/o Sh. Dhollu Ram and other, LR of the deceased workman Dhollu Ram, R/o Village
Tihari, PO Thuran, Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5203
….……....Applicants
Versus
1.
The Chairman, Bhakra Beas management Board, Madhya Marg, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh-160019.
2.
The Chief Engineer, BSL Project/BBMB Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, (HP)-175038.
…..Respondents/Management
Present: Mr. S C Gupta, AR for workman.
Mr. Ravinder Rana, Law Officer for the respondents.
Award
Passed on:- 04.04.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/24/2018-IR(CM-II), dated 20.12.2018, under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and subsection 2(A) 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. Ganga Devi
& Others, (Legal Heirs/Legal Representatives of Late Dhollu Ram) for declaring his
retrenchment/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 brief facts related to the case are that the applicants are legal heirs of Sh. Dhollu Ram (deceased
workman), who was engaged on 12.11.1965 for the construction of the Beas Sutluj Link Project {hereinafter
called as BSL(P)}. The said project remained initially under the Management of Beas Control Board, which
was constituted on 10.02.1961 and after enactment of Punjab Re-Organization Act, 1966 (hereinafter called
“Re-Organization Act”) Beas Control Board was renamed as Beas Construction Board (hereinafter called
“BCB”) and also Bhakra Management Board, which was established w.e.f. 01.10.1967 and later on it was
renamed as Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereinafter called as BBMB), which is working as such w.e.f.
15.05.1976. The workman of this project was considered as the employees of the Central Government by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Jaswant Singh and others versus Union of India and Others AIR
1980 SC 115. The management made illegal retrenchment of the employees in phases and the deceased
workman was also retrenched along with them. The deceased workman had completed 240 days in every
calendar year and was not interrupted till his retrenchment and the retrenchment is illegal and in violation of
Section 25F, 25H, Rule 77 and 78 of the ID Act. The workman was also retrenched by the employer on
30.06.1977 and copy of discharge certificate was issued by the office of Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB
Sundernagar in accordance with provision of the Act. After the retrenchment of the workman, management
appointed fresh workmen/employees, violating Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. The BSL (P) is an industrial
establishment as per Section 25(L) of the ID Act. This action of the management also violates the directions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in Para 40 of the case of Jaswant Singh (supra). No notice as per Rule
78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is statutory requirement, has been issued to the
workman. Not only this no seniority list as per law was prepared and principle of last come first go was
violated by the management at the time of retrenchment of the workman, which also violates Section 25G of
the ID Act. It is maintained that the deceased workman after his retrenchment remained ill and could not raised
the dispute during the period but raised his voice for re-employment through the union and ultimately, he died
on 15.01.1988. The deceased workman after his retrenchment did not remain in the gain full employed till his
death.
2. It is also maintained that similar matters have been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
vide its judgments dated 07.05.2007 in CWP Nos.3061-64 of 2006, 3069 of 2006,3073-3083 of 2006,3085-
3087 of 2006,3090-3137 of 2006 and 3148-3149 of 2006. These judgments of the Hon'ble High Court have
been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Biri Singh and
others etc. in SLP Nos. 16939-17007 of 2007 vide of orders dated 08.07.2014. Vide order dated 08.07.2014
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered that the matter to be taken up before the Industrial Tribunal. Many of
the workmen have already taken up the matters before the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No.1 and 2 Chandigarh. It may also not be out of context to mention here that the present matter
is covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Raghubir Singh V/s General
Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, JT 2014 (10) SC 168. It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition of
the applicants may kindly be allowed and retrenchment/discharge order dated 30.06.1977 of the deceased
workman be held illegal and the workman be considered in continuous service up to 15.01.1988, when he got
5204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
died, and the management may be directed to release all consequential benefits till 15.01.1988
instead of 30.06.1977.
3. Respondents filed written statement, alleging therein that the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased
workman and their application is not maintainable under the provisions of the ID Act and the applicants raised
the present dispute at a belated stage after 43 years without furnishing any plausible reason for extraordinary
delay. The deceased workman Sh. Dhollu Ram was Ex-work charged employee of Beas Construction Board
(BCB), which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Re-organization Act. The deceased workman was
retrenched after completion/part completion of the works of BCB in accordance with the provisions of the ID
Act. The deceased workman was paid terminal benefits i.e. retrenchment compensation, gratuity, ex-gratia
amount on account of his retrenchment from BCB as per provisions of ID Act. It is further maintained that
BCB and present management are two distinct and separate entities. It is also maintained that construction of
Beas Project was undertaken by the Punjab Govt. Irrigation Department prior to the re-organization of the
erstwhile State of Punjab on 01.11.1966. After re-organization the work of BSL(P) was taken over by the
Central Govt. on behalf of partner states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. The Central Govt. constituted
BCB under Section 80(5) of the Re-organization Act and further stipulated that any component of Beas Project
in relation to which the construction has been completed be transferred by the Central Govt. to Bhakra
Management Board (hereinafter called as BMB) constituted under Section 79(1) of the Re-organization Act. It
is further stated under Section 80(5) of the Re-organization Act that BMB would be re-named as BBMB when
any component of Beas Project was transferred under Section 80(6) of the Re-organization Act. The workman
was employed by the BCB. Thus, the workman never remained the employee of management. Even work-
charged employees of the BCB had filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, titled as
Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India &Anr., 1979 SCC 440, in which their claim for absorbing
them in BBMB is not granted instead their retrenchment from BCB was upheld. Remaining averments have
been denied and it is stated that the claim of the applicants is hopelessly time barred and the applicants being
legal heirs has no legal right to file claim petition under the ID Act. It is prayed that claim be dismiss.
Evidence of parties:
4. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
5. Applicant Mr. Suman Singh S/o Sh. Dhollu Ram has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in
evidence as Ex.WW1/A and has been cross-examined by the law officer of management. He also tendered
document Ex.WW1/1 Discharge Certificate. AR for workman closed the evidence on behalf of workman on
06.10.2023.
6. The management has filed affidavit of Er. Dinesh Kumar S/o Hawa Singh, Executive Engineer, Balancing
Reservoir Slit Clearance and Plant Design Division, BBMB Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, who filed his affidavit
in evidence as Ex.MW1/A and has been cross-examined by the learned AR of workman. He tendered into
evidence copy of service record of workman Ex.MW1/B and closed the evidence on behalf of management on
16.10.2024 and the case is fixed for arguments.
Submissions of Applicants:
7. While arguing the case, ld. AR for the applicants contended that in this case, claim has been filed by the LR
of deceased, who expired on 15.01.1988 and as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various
Hon'ble High Courts, claim can be filed even after the death of the applicant. To support this view, he placed
reliance upon the in case law titled as Anjaliamma and others versus Labour Court-III at Hyderabad rep. by
its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and another, 1995(6) SLR 680, Bharathamma and others versus The
Labour Court and another (WP No.11342 of 1994) 1995(2) Andh. LD 472 and Rameshwar Manjhi versus
Management of Sangaramgarh Colliery (1994 AIR 1176, 1994 SCC(1)292. He further contended that in this
case deceased workman was discharged on 30.06.1977 due to reduction in strength and he was issued
discharge certificate by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB Sundernagar. He referred to Section 25-H of the ID
Act which provides re-employment of retrenched deceased workman. He further has drawn the attention of the
Court towards the statement of wife of deceased workman. He was required to be adjust in view of Section 25-
H of the Act by the management. He was not given any employment. While arguing further, learned AR for
the workman referred to Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Dispute Central Rule 1957 (hereinafter called
Industrial Rule). Rule 77 provides maintenance of seniority list of workman and it states that before any
worker is retrenched the appellant-establishment is required to place on the notice board the seniority list of all
the workmen who were to be retrenched but nothing has been done in this regard before retrenchment of the
present worker. He also referred to Rule 78 which provides that as and when any vacancy incurred then
retrenched workmen were required to be given registered notice but nothing was done by the management.
Moreover, question of limitation does not arise as no limitation period has been prescribed under the Act for
seeking relief under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act.
Submissions of management:-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5205
8. While arguing the case, learned Law Officer for the management contended that initially Beas Control Board
was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred
from Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organization
Act, BMB was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various works as mentioned in
Section 79 itself. Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organization Act provides that BMB constituted under
Section 79 of the Act shall be re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project has been
transferred under sub-section 5 and the BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project
have been so transferred. All the projects under BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist
in 1984. Deceased workman Sh. Dhollu Ram was employed as work charged employee on 12.11.1965 and was
retrenched on 30.06.1977. All similar work charged employees including the present workman were engaged
by the BCB which ceased to exist in the year 1984 therefore, the workmen cannot be termed as the employees
of the BBMB because there does not exist BCB which was his parent department. Moreover, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India &Anr., 1979 SCC 440 has
held that work charged employees were bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected by the
management and also by the award 2-C of the year 1971 before Sh. H.R. Sodhi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-
Chandigarh between workman and employees of the Beas Construction Board, Sunder Nagar and published in
the gazette on 15.06.1974 of the Govt. of India. AR for management further argued that as per Rule 4 of the
Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957, the application and the statement can be signed by the workman
himself or by any officer of the trade union of which he is member or by another workmen in the same
establishment duly authorized by him in his behalf and since in this case, application has not been moved by
the applicant, the claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
9. So far as the claim of the applicant regarding re-employment after retrenchment on 30.06.1977 is concerned,
workman was not entitled for re-instatement as in a case under reference no.2-C of 1971 decided by Sh. H.R.
Sodhi, the then Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh, it was held that management in order to establish an
industrial peace and to secure the work charge employees after completing the work can engage after
completion of project at any time within 6 months for the maintenance of staff for project of any work if it is
required to those work charged employees in order to seniority who have put 10 years of service. The relevant
portion of para is reproduced as below:
“It is accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other
time within six months thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its
Works if it is required to be recruited or transferred from any department of the State
Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first be made to the work-
charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’ continuous
service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs
subject to the medical fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the
workmen will not, however, be disturbed to their prejudice nor their continuity of
service affected.”
10.
Learned representative for the management further contended that in this case workman was
retrenched on 30.06.1977 after receiving due retrenchment compensation etc. and now he is claiming re-
employment under Section 25-H of the Act and his claim is hopelessly time barred as the legal heirs have filed
the present claim petition in the year 2018. To support this view he has placed reliance in the case titled as
Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal, AIR 2006, Supreme Court 2682, wherein in
identical matters Court has not entertained writ petition due to inordinate delay. In the present case there is a
delay of about 43 years. He also relied upon the case titled as Ram Chand Vs. The BBMB and another, CWP
no.2787 of 2018, decided on 03.12.2018, where the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that
dispute if any ought to be raised within a reasonable period as the ID Act does not prescribed time limit for
referring such dispute. AR for respondents also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh Shimla in CWP No.3057 of 2023 titled as Ghunghriya Ram versus Himachal Pradesh
State Electricity Board Limited and others and judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court, Madras in WP
Nos.5556 of 2021 titled as Mr. D Poomaran versus The General Manager, Bharat Petorloum Corporation
Ltd. and others, wherein it is stated that as per Section 2-A(3) of the ID Act, the order should be challenged
within 3 years from the date of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as
specified un sub-section (1) of Section 2-A. In the present case workman was engaged on 12.11.1965 and was
discharged on 30.06.1977 and the legal heir has sought re-employment after 43 years which was held to be
highly time barred. Thus, he contended that claim of applicant is time barred. Deceased workman was
discharged on 30.06.1977 and thereafter his legal heirs filed present claim before the Labour Conciliation
Officer.
5206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Findings:
11.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the workman and
also for the respondents.
12.
So far as this contention of the AR for the respondents that in this case, application is not
maintainable by LRs concerned, the same is devoid of merit as Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case
law titled as Anjaliamma and others versus Labour Court-III at Hyderabad rep. by its Presiding Officer,
Hyderabad and another (supra) and Bharathamma and others versus The Labour Court and another
(supra) has categorically held that in case workman had died, then even LRs of the deceased can move an
application in respect of the monetary benefits. The relevant para 14 & 15 of Anjaliamma and others versus
Labour Court-III at Hyderabad rep. by its Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and another (supra) are produced
as under:
14. As already pointed out supra the question weather the legal heirs/representatives of a deceased-
workman can raise an industrial dispute directly under Section 2-A(2) of the Act did not arise for
consideration in any of the decisions of the High Courts or in Rameshwar Manjhi's case (supra).
But the Supreme Court in para 13 in the context of an industrial dispute filed under Section 2-A of
the Act has laid down the law that in the event of death of the workman during pendency of the
proceedings the legal representatives or heirs can continue the proceedings. If according to the
Apex Court if a pending proceedings can be continued by the legal heirs/representatives of the
deceased workman after the death of the workman during the pendency of the proceedings, there is
no good reason to hold that such legal representatives/heirs are incompetent to institute the dispute
before the Industrial Court after the death of a workman have locus standi to continue an industrial
dispute instituted by such workman in a Labour Court in law, then they are also competent to
institute such workman. The observation of the Supreme Court in paras 11 and 12 in general and in
para 13 in particular read with the views expressed by the Calcutta (sic. Kerala) High Court
in Gwalior Rayon's case (supra) and that of the Gujarat High Court in Bank of Baroda's case
(supra) which views are affirmed by the Apex Court in Rameshwar Manjhi's case clearly go to show
that legal heirs/representatives of a deceased workman can institute industrial dispute before the
jurisdictional Labour Court after the death of such workman.
15. This question may be considered from another angle as well. As pointed out supra, the Labour
Court in exercise of its discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Act can grant reliefs of
reinstatement or lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, continuity of services
or any other appropriate relief, pecuniary or otherwise having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the present case if the workman were to alive he would have
instituted the industrial dispute in the Labour Court and there was absolutely no legal impediment
for him to do so and if the Industrial Court were to uphold the claim of the workman it would have
granted the relief of reinstatement or lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages
and other reliefs. If that is so what the deceased workman himself would have been awarded by the
Labour Court except the relief of reinstatement had he be survived, should be considered to be a
part of his estate. The learned Authors Clerk & Lindsell on Torts have pointed out that since it is
the deceased's own cause of action which survives for the benefit of his estate, the estate should
recover such damages as the deceased himself would have been awarded had he survived.
Therefore it should be held that with the death of the workman the cause of action to seek reliefs
contemplated under the Act from the Labour Court does not die with him in totality and the causes
of action to recover lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-wages do survive for
the benefit of his estate. Recognizing this position and in order to resolve the conflict of opinions
existed earlier among several High Courts, the Legislature inserted sub-section (8) in Section
10 by Amending Act 46 of 1982 and after the amendment proceedings before any adjudicatory
authority in relation to an industrial dispute shall not lapse merely be reason of the death of any of
the parties to the dispute being a workman and the adjudicator is enjoined to complete such
proceedings and submit his award to appropriate Government. There cannot be any dispute that the
petitioners-legal heirs of the deceased workman are entitled to the estate left behind the workman.
This is so having regard to the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act and the
observation of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda
extracted above and approved by the Apex Court. In that view of the matter I am in respectful
agreement with the view taken by may learned brother S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy, J. in
Bharathamma & Others v. The Labour Court (supra) and it does not require any reconsideration.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5207
Thus, application on behalf of LRs is maintainable and arguments advanced by the AR for respondents
is not maintainable.
13.
The management relied upon mainly in this case on the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another
(supra), which is very material for decision of this case. The said judgment deals with two types of petitioners.
First type of petitioners was employed by the BCB on purely temporary basis and they had also given written
undertaking confirming the term of their appointment. The BCB appointed the first type of petitioners on ad-
hoc basis with a clear understanding that they will have no right to be retained in service after the completion
of the Beas Project. They are Engineers, Section Officer, Accounts Clerk, Teacher etc. and they have claimed
their parity with other employees who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan
Governments and who were serving on deputation in connection with the works of the Bhakra Nangal Scheme.
14.
In respect of these employees, it was held as follow:-
“To sum up, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the
Central Government. Their conditions of service will be primarily governed by
the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to the benefit of any of the
rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may
make representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however,
not possible for this Court to grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by
them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid rules, including the relief
by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent
service under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no
right to be transferred to the services of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-
named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly, the proposed
retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality
contained in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the
Deputationists belong to two different and distinct classes.”
15.
As regards, second type of employees i.e. work charged employees the judgment deals in Para 41,
42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 which read as follow:-
“41.A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the
expenses, including the wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works".
The pay and allowances of employees who are borne on a work-charged establishment
are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of the work.
42. The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was
work-charged. The work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their
appointments are made for the execution of a specified work. From the very nature of
their employment, their services automatically come to an end on the completion of the
works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get any relief under
the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any
benefits under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.
43. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are
industrial workers and are entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the
Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which even
contracts of employment are open to adjustment9 and modification. The work-charged
employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like the other
petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of
compensatory benefits.
44. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative
employment were made to the work- charged employees and many of them have
accepted those offers. The rule of 'last come, first go' has also been consistently adopted
while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-charged employees
possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment",
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law
including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act,
1946.
45. There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas
Project. Out of them, about 26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation
under the settlement arrived between the workmen and the management in the
5208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New
Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which
the work-charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation
proceedings. By reason of section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement
arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding is binding on all persons who were
employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they were employed
on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v.
Jatin Chakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not even necessary, in
order to bind the work men to the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show
that they belonged to the union which took part in the conciliation proceedings, since the
policy underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an extended operation to such
settlements. In the instant case, all the 12 unions which represented the workmen on the
work-charged establishment were parties to the conciliation proceedings. The settlement
will therefore bind all the work-charged employees.
46. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by
the Industrial Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an
industrial dispute between the work-charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project,
Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the management. Under that award, as
stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the workmen
"virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the
aforesaid award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged
employees, involving a burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.
47. Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28,
1977 effected between them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and
since they are also bound by and have accepted benefits under the consent award dated
May 15, 1974 they are not entitled to any rights apart from those flowing from the
aforesaid settlement and the Award. SLP No.1246 of 1979 which is filed to challenge the
Award and C.M.P. No.2077 of 1979 which is filed for condonation of the delay of over
four and half years caused in filing the SLP shall have to be dismissed.”
16.
Thus, from the above observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that work charged employees
are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the specified work and their service
comes to an end on the completion of work for the sole purpose of which they are employed.
17.
Para 43 provides that work charged employees are industrial worker and entitled to the benefit of
the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under
which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. Para 45 as reproduced above
further provides that in the conciliation proceeding it has been held that there were about 36000 work charged
employees working on Beas Project out of them 26000 has already accepted retrenchment compensation under
the settlement arrived between the workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the
Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi under Section 12 of the ID Act. The said settlement is
binding on all the work charge employees who are working in the establishment to which the dispute relates.
In para 46 it is further stated that apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceeding an award was made
by the CGIT Chandigarh in reference no.2-C in an industrial dispute between the work charged employee of
the Beas Sutlej Project, Sundernagar with which we are concerned and the management. A consent formula
was evolved to which the workmen virtually agreed. In the last para 47 itself specifically stated that work
charged employees are bound by the settlement and award May 15, 1974 and they were entitled to rights those
flowing from the settlement and award.
18.
So far as the settlement executed between the work charged employees and management through
unions, the same has not been produced by the management despite opportunity was given to file the same.
Thus, adverse interference can be drawn against them. To support this view, reliance can be placed to the
judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case held as2001(3) RSJ 382 Ambika Parashad Versus
Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Chandigarh and Another wherein it has been held
“that respondent has not produced record in the Labour Court to prove that Workman has not
completed 240 days of service though application was submitted by the Workman for production of
record held that a person in possession of the best evidence has to produce the same, otherwise adverse
inference can be drawn against the said party”. In this case also as per order dated 24.02.2025 of this
Tribunal, respondents were asked to produce the settlement arrived between the 12 union of the work charged
employee and management under Section 12 of ID Act before the Regional Labour Commissioner, New Delhi
and all the work charged employee were bound by the said settlement. On 13.03.2025, Mr. Ravinder Rana,
Law Officer appeared on behalf of respondents and stated that aforesaid settlement is not traceable. It is also
added here that in similar decided matters, wherein number of opportunities were given to the respondents to
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5209
produce the said settlement, however, despite of availing specific directions, the said policy was not produced.
Those cases are ID No.247/2005 titled as Dharam Singh Versus BBMB and another, ID No.127/2005 titled
as Narpat Ram versus Bhakra Beas Management Board and another and other similar matters. As such
adverse inference can be drawn against the management in view of the above law.
19.
As regards award passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, the relevant claim of the
work charged employees was regarding their regularization services and the finding given by the Tribunal is as
follow:-
“Regulation of Services of the workcharged employees.
It is an un-disputed fact that the entire strength of labour as employed in the Project is workcharged. The
institution of workcharged establishment is not only necessary but sometime unavoidable. These workmen
are engaged on temporary basis and their services are utilized for the execution of a specified work for which
they may be suited. From the very nature of employment the services of such workman automatically come to
an end on the completion of the work. A workcharged employee does not get any relief under the Payment of
Gratuity Act nor is he benefitted by the employees state Insurance Scheme. He does not indeed enjoy any
retiral benefits. Before partition of the country in 1947 it was not usual to have project, construction of
which required a number of years to complete but after constituting ourselves into a democratic Republic
and the Government having taken in hand five year plans for development of the country there are various
schemes involving the construction of works for a period extending over several years as is the case of the
instant Project. It commenced in 1962 and more than 12 years having passed the completion might take
another few years. In such situation it seems reasonable and fair that a workman who has, like a regular
employee, spent the part of his life ranging from 5-10 years upto 20 year, should not be thrown on the road
and must be assured some benefits as are available to regular staff. The other aspect of the matter is that the
employer could not compelled to retain workcharged employees after the work for which the latter had been
engaged is completed, as after all, he was employed before a particular job and the employer, be it the
Government or any of its public undertakings, cannot taken upon itself the responsibility of that workman
for all time to come. It can be well argued that such a workmen should feel happy and content that instead of
remaining un-employed be got employment for a long time.
To assure Industrial peace and economic justice to such class of workmen some balance has in my opinion
to be stuck between the two extremes. It is the duty of the State under the Directive Principles enunciated in
part 4 of the constitution to secure and protect that social order in which justice, social and economic could
be had by all institutions of national life. I fell that it is equally the duty of an adjudicator of industrial
disputes charged with the duty of administering social justice to be guided by the fundamentals contained in
this chapter though he has to bear In mind the limits of the economic capacity of the employer and
Endeavour must have ever be made to secure work for every citizen do in our present economy. It is not
possible to immediately achieve that object. The workman employed by the respondent management are
drawn from different states out of which I am informed about 8/10 thousands are from Punjab about 22000
from Himachal Pradesh and the remaining from the states of Rajasthan and Haryana. Some of the workmen
are from U.P and Bihar and a handful from Kerala. The board has by and large been consistently following
the Punjab pattern in the matter of wage structure, revision thereof from time to time and grant of dearness
allowance. It is only with regard to categories not appearing in the common Schedule of Rates prepared by
the erstwhile United State of Punjab that the board took its independence decisions on the recommendations
of its own standing committee. Even Himachal Pradesh Government generally followed the Punjab policy.
The state government of Punjab in its wisdom, and I should say rightly has declared that the services of work
charged employees in building and roads branch who had worked for 10 years or more would stand
regularized in the sense that the workmen would be treated at par with those in the regular service of the
state government. The benefit of this announcement was afterwards extended to the employees of its
irrigation branch as well at the workman who held from Punjab continue to stay in their parents state the
services of those who had put in 10 years or more would have been regularized the respondent management
too in pursuance of its policy to follow the Punjab pattern might have regularized the services of at least of
those workmen who had come from Punjab but any such course would have created awkward situation as
the workmen from other States could not be discriminated in this respect. Moreover financial implications
and other complications are involved.
In such circumstances stated above, would have directed that the services of those of the workman who have
been continuously employed for more than 10 years should be regularized. But the other problems arising
from such a direction including financial impact on the employer cannot be lost sight of The Central
Government through the board is only managing on behalf of the state of Punjab, Rajasthan Haryana and
Himachal Pradesh who are partners in the venture. Several aspects of the question were discussed with the
workmen and the management in the course of arguments and a formula evolved to which the workman
virtually agreed and I feel that such a solution as stated hereunder is quite just to all the parties provided it is
5210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
work out, honestly stated. No doubt, what is referred to me is the matter of regularization of the services of
work charge employees, but the directions that I am issuing in my opinion, amount to only granting lesser
relief than claimed by the workmen. The management can also have no grievance if it wants industrial peace
and is anxious to secure employment to the work-charged employees after the completion of the work. It is
accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six months
thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or
transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first
be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years’ continuous
service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical
fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to
their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected. The workmen have expressed an apprehension that
near the completion of the Project trades of some of them might be changed so that it could be said that a
suitable workman needed for a particular job was not available and an outsider was therefore necessary to be
employed. To protect the workmen against this possible denial of their rights it is further directed that
category or trade of no workman shall be changed within one year preceding the completion of the Project
without his consent in writing and that if any such change without consent is made it will have no
consequence inasmuch as such a workman will be entitled to the job of his earlier trade provided the vacancy
relates to that trade. As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance
staff. I have no reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also
the Central Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or
work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where there is a need for
workmen of those trades.”
20.
A perusal of aforesaid findings made it ample clear that the order has been passed by the then
learned Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chandigarh to maintain industrial peace and to secure employment to the
work charged employees after the completion of the work and it was also held by the learned CGIT that State
Govt. who are beneficiary under the project and the Central Govt. will make every reasonable effort to get
those workmen re-employed at any other project or work whether in any one of these States or in any other
part of the country where there is a need of workmen of those trades.
21.
It is specific case of the applicant that respondents also appointed fresh workmen, but preference
was not given to her late husband during his lifetime, which is in clear violation of section 25-H of the ID Act.
In this regard, it is pointed out that no pointed cross examination has been done by the law officer of the
respondents, meaning thereby, the respondents have admitted that they have engaged fresh workmen but
preference was not given to the deceased workman during his life time.
22.
Admittedly, in this case, no effort was made by the respondents to give any employment after the
retrenchment of the workmen and even there is non-compliance of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules. The
same are reproduced below:
77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen. -The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in
the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be arranged according to the
seniority of their service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in
a conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the
actual date of retrenchment.
78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen. - (1) At least ten days before the date on which
vacancies are to be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a
conspicuous place in the premises of the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and
shall also give intimation of those vacancies by registered post to every one of all the retrenched
workmen eligible to be considered therefore, to the address given by him at the time of
retrenchment or at any time thereafter:
Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen,
it shall be sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched
workmen in the list referred to in rule 77 the number of such senior-most workmen being double the
number of such vacancies:
Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no
obligation on the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen:
Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the
employer, does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation
sent to him by the employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies
that may be filled on any subsequent occasion.]
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5211
(2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall also inform
the trade unions connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled
and names of the retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule:
Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case
where an intimation is sent to every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under
rule 77.
23.
Moreover, a perusal of cross examination of Er. Dinesh Kumar (MW1) reveals that the deceased
workman was never called for re-appointment at any point of time and as per aforesaid Rule 77 & 78, the
workman was required to be given notice. Moreover, no explanation has been given that after the retrenchment
of the deceased workman, other persons were not recruited by the management, which is in violation of
Section 25-H of the ID Act.
24.
However, the present work charged employee and other work-charged employees have been
retrenched long back and even at the stage it is impossible to re-employe them. However, certainly in respect
of workcharged employees present respondents were directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Judgment of
Jaswant Singh (Supra) to give benefits in terms of settlement and award dated 15.05.1974. The main purpose
of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Ld. CGIT Chandigarh was to rehabilitate to some extent the work charged
employees and restore peace and congenial atmosphere that is why Ld. CGIT Chandigarh had given directions
to all state to re-employe them. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of present respondents that no relief can be
granted against present respondents as deceased husband of applicant was not their employee.
A.
So far as this argument of Ld. AR of the management that those work charged employees only who
have completed 10 years of service were required to be adjusted within 6 months from their retrenchment is
concerned, the same is devoid of merit as no effort was made by the management to adjust the work charged
employees. Moreover, no documentary evidence has been produced that any effort was made to adjust the
workman after his retrenchment. Further, Ld. CGIT Chandigarh in its last lines concluded as under:-
“As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance staff. I
have no reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and
also the Central Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any
other Project or work whether in any one of these states or in any other part of the country where
there is a need of workmen of those trades”
Nothing has come on record that above directions were complied with.
25.
Moreover, in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees and
management, it cannot be interfered what were the terms and conditions in the said settlement. Further, CGIT
Chandigarh has fixed ten years time and accrual of vacancy within six months keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and has evolved his own formula to bring peace and harmony between work
charged employees and management but it cannot be said to be a universal policy in the absence of production
of settlement between work charged employees and management. However, no effort was made to adjust the
petitioners in view of order of CGIT.
26.
As regard, this contention of learned AR of management that petitioners were not the employees of
the BBMB but were the employees of BCB, the same is devoid of merit as Discharge certificate was issued by
the BBMB. Moreover, as per respondents Beas Control Board was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was
constituted in the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred from Beas Control Board to BCB in the year
1966 thereafter as per Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, BMB was constituted for administrative,
maintenance and operation of various works as mentioned in Section 79 itself. Section 80(6) of the Punjab
Re-organization Act provides that BMB constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be re-named as BBMB
when any of the components of the Beas Project has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the BCB shall
cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project have been so transferred. All the projects under
BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in 1984. When all work of BCB stands
transferred to BBMB so it cannot be said that BBMB is separate identity than BCB. Rather BCB has merged
in BBMB. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh case (supra) in respect of work charged
employees has no where stated that relief can be sought by work charged employees only against the BCB. So
contention of Ld. AR of the management that BCB and BBMB are two separate entities is devoid of merit.
27.
So far this argument of Law Officer for the respondents that the case is hopelessly time barred is
concerned, the same is again devoid of merits as there was non-compliance of Rule 77 and 78 of Industrial
Rules which has been reproduced above. Moreover, there is no limitation period prescribed for filing a
reference. Moreover, reference was received in the year 2018. So far as case laws on the point of limitation the
same are not attracted in the present case as there was no compliance of Judgment of Jaswant Singh case
(Supra). Moreover, limitation was added in Section 2A of the ID Act in the year 2010 (15.09.2010) and
5212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
deceased workman was dismissed from service on 30.06.1977 and AR for respondents has failed to bring this
fact that the aforesaid provision was retrospective.
28.
It is added here that in the present case, the reference was made under clause (d) of sub-section (1)
of Section 10 of the Act. It is not case filed under Section 2-A of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as Raghubir Singh V/s General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar (supra) has held as follow:
“42. It is an undisputed fact that the dispute was raised by the workman after he was
acquitted in the criminal case which was initiated at the instance of the respondent.
Raising the industrial dispute belatedly and getting the same referred from the State
Government to the Labour Court is for justifiable reason and the same is supported by law
laid down by this Court in Calcutta Dock Labour Board (supra). Even assuming for the
sake of the argument that there was a certain delay and latches on the part of the workman
in raising the industrial dispute and getting the same referenced for adjudication, the
Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by
adjudicating the same on merits of the case and it ought to have moulded the relief
appropriately in favour of the workman. That has not been done at all by the Labour
Court. Both the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court in its
Civil Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal have failed to consider this important
aspect of the matter.”
Even Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.31 of the said judgment has held as follow:
“31. The rejection of the reference by the Labour Court by answering the additional issue
no. 2 regarding the delay latches and limitation without adjudicating the points of dispute
referred to it on the merits amounts to failure to exercise its statutory power under Section
11A of the Act. Therefore, we have to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour
Court and the judgment & order of the High Court as it has erroneously confirmed the
award of the Labour Court without examining the relevant provisions of the Act and
decisions of this Court referred to supra on the relevant issue regarding the limitation.”
29.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred in the said case decision of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind
Co-Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.(AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1351),
wherein, Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating
that:-
“10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation
Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it
cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised
by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice
and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be
generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in
shown to be existing, the tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can
appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the
date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal.
30.
In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay was not thus fatal to
the case of the applicants. It is also added here that so far as the case Ram Chand Vs. The BBMB and another
(supra), Ghunghriya Ram versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others (supra) and
Mr. D Poomaran versus The General Manager, Bharat Petorloum Corporation Ltd. and others (supra)
referred by the AR for respondents are concerned, those cases were filed by the workman under Section 2-A of
the ID Act, which specifically provides limitation of 3 years from the date of dismissal or retrenchment.
Section 10(1) of the ID Act specifically provide that appropriate government may refer any industrial dispute
at any time, whereas the same is conspicuously absent in sub-section (3) of Section 2A, which could clearly
depict the intention of the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub-section
(3) of Section 2A. Thus, period of limitation cannot be considered. So far as the case law titled as Chief
Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal (supra), the same is not attracted to the facts and
circumstance of the present case in view of the judgment Raghubir Singh V/s General Manager, Haryana
Roadways, Hissar (supra), whose relevant paras are reproduced above. Therefore, it cannot be said that case
of applicant was beyond limitation.
31.
However, it is added that Mr. Suman Singh, son of deceased workman in his affidavit nowhere
stated that retrenchment compensation was not paid to his deceased father. In his cross examination, he has
stated that he has no knowledge whether his late father was paid retrenchment compensation. Remaining silent
in his affidavit that his late father was not paid any retrenchment compensation meaning thereby that his late
father was paid retrenchment compensation by the management. Moreover, in written statement, stand of the
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5213
respondents is that the deceased workman was paid all terminal benefits i.e. retrenchment compensation,
gratuity and ex-gratia etc. on account of retrenchment from BCB as per provisions of the ID Act and other
relevant laws. Thus, it shall be presumed that deceased workman was given retrenchment compensation. Even
a perusal of service record (MW1/B) of deceased workman reveals that he was paid gratuity etc. So, there is no
breach of Section 25 F of the Act.
32.
Further, there was non-compliance of Jaswant Singh Case (Supra), Reference No.2C of 1971 and
Rule 77 & 78 of Industrial Rules and in this case it would be highly difficult to re-employe the workman. The
only remedy left is to compensate the workman in term of money.
33.
Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and other connected case of similar
nature the following scheme of compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:
i.
Workcharged employee who has completed 5 years of service or more shall be entitled for
Rs.50,000/- along with interest @9% per annum as compensation from the date of moving of
application till the realization of amount.
ii. Workcharged employee who has completed less than 5 years but more than 1 year would be entitled
Rs.25,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving of application till the
realization of amount.
iii. Those employees who have not completed 1 year will not be entitled for any compensation in the
present case.
34.
Deceased workman Sh. Dhollu Ram was employed on 12.11.1965 and was retrenched on
30.06.1977 as mentioned in Discharge Certificate (Ex.WW1/1) issued by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB
Sundernagar, and has worked for 11 year and about 7 months (more than 5 years), so the applicants are entitled
for Rs.50,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving the application till its realization.
35.
The reference is answered accordingly and stands disposed off.
36.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the
Act for publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 3 िुलाई, 2025
का. आ. 1324.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj इंजड न ए रलाइंस ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] िजिराबाि ds
iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल- 22013/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj- (सी.एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 3rd July, 2025
S.O. 1324.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 9/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
Indian Airlines. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 03/07/2023.
[No. L-22013/01/2025 – IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar
Presiding Officer
Dated the 20th day of June, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 9/2023
Between:
5214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri Sunil Kumar,
S/o. Late Sri Premanand,
R/o. 32- 81/1. SN 53. Sainik Nagar,
RK puram, Medchal-Malkajgiri.
Pin code -500056, Hyderabad,T.S.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
The Air India limited-
(M/s Indian Airlines Merged with AIL)
Airlines house, 113 Gurudura
Rakabgunj Road. New Delhi- 110001.
2.
The Air India limited
Rep. by the Regional Director -Southern
Region (o) Airlines House,
Meenambakkam, Chenai-600016
3.
Mr. Natarajan Chandrasekaran
Chairman of Air India Ltd.
Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,
New Delhi – 110001
4.
Sh. Madhu Mathen
ED (IFS), For Cabin Crew matters
Air India Main Booking Office
2nd Floor, S'Jung Airport
New Delhi – 110003.
….Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
M/s. M/s. Sunil Kumar Jha & N. Balu, Advocates
For the Respondent:
NIL
AWARD
Sri Sunil Kumar who worked as Cabin Crew (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents Air India Limited seeking for
declaring the proceeding dated 2.2.2023
issued by Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same
consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the consequential
benefits such as continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this
court may deems fit.
2.
The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:
It is submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as Cabin crew vide appointment letter
No.MPE/CC/DR/2005/4522 dated 22.7.2005 in the Respondent organization. Petitioner had taken up works in
complete zeal and right earnestness in the employment and that Petitioner has completed almost 17 years in the
service and on the date of initiation into the services, the Petitioner was posted as chief cabin crew with an additional
responsibility of check cabin crew since Respondent is very much aware that this kind of post can be occupied only
by those candidates who have successfully completed all the required parameters and work experience in the Post of a
cabin crew member, it is submitted during the pandemic 2019, the Petitioner has not taken any leave and his support
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5215
services were satisfactory. As per the Respondent's record Petitioner was assigned all hazardous tasks, which the
Petitioner had completed successfully, as a front-line warrior including Vande Bharat, a travel mission during
pandemic and was instrumental in bringing back stranded Indians from different countries without any adverse
remarks or without evading the assigned work during pandemic 2019-20. In fact, the Petitioner is the recipient of
several appreciations for the selfless services rendered and many documentaries have been issued which are much
known by the department of Respondents. It is further submitted that although suffered during COVID-19- the
Petitioner never evaded the headily rosters. There was another incident when the Air India business performance was
below the maintenance, Air India gradually lost the business but despite these unfavourable reasons, the Petitioner
continued his loyalty towards the Respondent by remaining in employment even with a pay cut. Petitioner used to be
on the time for all the work assigned and used to be punctual in attending office and completing works assigned,
including during the works for the merger of Indian Airline with Air India. It was another incident in 2001 during
the course of employment with Indian Airlines when Indian Airlines was taken over by Air India and in the process of
merger there was uncertainty in the employment even then Petitioner continued in Respondent employment without
taking any other opportunities for a higher salary. It is submitted that the Petitioner had logged in seventeen (17)
years of employment with the Respondent without any adverse remark with respect to his employment either from
Captain/Pilot or from the passengers which was very much acknowledged by Respondent No.1, but Respondent has
removed Petitioner from the employment. The only reason for this bone of contention there was a quarrel between
the Petitioner and a junior colleague during the international flight from Riyadh to Hyderabad on 01-01-2023. It is
submitted that this incident initially was not noticed during the process of the disciplinary committee even then it was
noticed by the first officer of the flight wherein the Pilot-in command categorically highlighted with remarks that the
"entire flight went safely there was no safety issue, all SOP was followed and landed in time", Hence it was a positive
remark from Pilot-in command i.e., Captain Ravindra Singh), in fact after this issues the junior colleague who is also
a resident of the Petitioner's colony and after some talks, the matter and all the issues were settled and closed. It is
submitted that without any proper notice, the Petitioner was called by the Respondent at their Delhi office on
18.01.2023 and surprisingly the matter was taken up which had concluded amicably and certain uncomfortable
queries were put to Petitioner on the 18.1.2023 the Respondent no.2 had issued the NTS after the inquiry which was
conducted by Respondents without following the due process and without any prior proper notice on 19.1.2023
onward surprisingly roaster was showing NTS (not to system assign) which is opposed to the principles of natural
justice. Petitioner was in a dilemma since there was no proper communication about the same. It is submitted that
without any prior information/notice on 2.2.2023, the Petitioner received an Email during the evening time stating
that the Petitioner has been relieved from the service, which was a rude shock to the Petitioner and the Petitioner's
5216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
wife and widowed mother who has lost her husband during the pandemic period. Consequently, Petitioner’s mother
was admitted in the hospital. In fact, the Petitioner's wife and children were in shock and deep sorrow that the
Petitioner has lost his employment without being afforded any opportunity to clear his position, which is unfair and
unconstitutional. It is submitted that as per the appointment letter dated 22.7.2005 served by Indian Airlines to the
Petitioner wherein the grounds of termination were mentioned categorically, as hereunder:-
a. If you fail to maintain normal vision without glasses/with contact lenses.
b. Do not maintain your weight within the prescribed limit.
c. Develop Air sickness ,and
d. If the documents produced by you in support of your age educational qualification etc., found to be false at
any stage.
It is submitted that the Petitioner has maintained the eligibility of employment consistently, and at any point time in
his tenure of employment he has not violated any points of the appointment letter, hence the termination is absolutely
unfair, unlawful, and illegal. It is submitted that the Petitioner has followed all the protocols, rules & regulations
stated in the appointment letter issued by Indian Airlines, there was no allegation of breach of any public safety,
Respondent has no additional appointment letter issued by Air India, therefore the termination procedure should be
adopted only in terms and condition stated in the first appointment letter hence, the termination of procedure adopted
by the Respondent is absolutely arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the Principle of Natural Justice. As per the
governing law of employment, the Respondents have clearly contravened the employment statutes and the
Respondent has no power or authority to remove the Petitioner from employment. It is submitted that the
aforementioned clauses are within the stipulated parameters and are as prescribed by the Respondent from to time but
still, the Respondent has terminated Petitioner from the employment without following the due process of law, which
tantamount to prejudiced action and will never under any circumstances, suffice any logical explanation. This
irrational, prejudicial, and haphazard action by the Respondent against the Petitioner, wherein the Petitioner had put
in seventeen (17) years of sincere and dedicated service and had worked hard only for the welfare and wellbeing of
employer and its stakeholders, this absolute disregard of his sincere service coupled with unexplained prejudice, has
deeply aggrieved the Petitioner wherein even after the absolute illegal termination of employment, Petitioner never
received any support or any assistance to voice cause for his justice. Therefore, prayed to set aside the termination
order passed against the Petitioner.
3.
Notice served upon the Respondent but despite service of notice, Respondent failed to file any counter and
the case proceeded ex-parte against Respondent. In ex-parte evidence Petitioner has filed his affidavit of chief
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5217
statement wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the petition. He has also exhibited photostat copies of
documentary evidence filed in support of the claim. The details of the documents are:-
Ex. W1 is appointment letter issued by Indian Airlines dated 19-7-2005. Ex. W2/1 is termination letter No.
RDSR/IFS/HYD/81011223/18 dated 2.2.2023. Ex.W2/2 is the letter No. RDSR/IFS/HYD/81011223/17 dated
2.2.2023 regarding reasons for issuing Ex.W2/1. Ex. W3 is email reply of Petitioner against the termination. Ex. W4
is Vande Bharat Mission report issued by Respondent (2 pages). Ex. W5 is article published by Respondent 2019-
2020. Ex. W6 is photographs of Petitioner during Vande Bharat Mission during Covid-19. Ex. W7 is death
certificate of Petitioner's father. Ex. W8 is Police verification certificate dated 12.3.2023. Ex. W9 is promotion
letter dated 13.1.2014. Ex. W10 is fitness certificate of Petitioner. Ex. W11 is Eye certificate. Ex.W12 is legal notice
dated 11.3.2023. Ex. W13 is postal receipts for issuance of legal notice. Ex. W14 are proof of delivery of legal
notice.
4.
Petitioner has also submitted written arguments. Heard. Perused the record. It is the settled law that even if
the case is proceeding ex-parte against the Respondent it has to be decided on merits on the basis of appreciation of
evidence adduced by the Petitioner on record and according to law.
5.
At the outset Petitioner has strenuously argued that the Respondent vide letter dated 2.2.2023 has terminated
his services without holding the departmental enquiry in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore,
the termination order dated 2.2.2023 passed by Respondent is de hors of the rules of the service and liable to be set
aside.
6.
In view of the submissions made by the Petitioner, perused the record. Document Ex. W1 is the appointment
letter of Petitioner Sri Sunil Kumar dated 19.7.2005 stated to be issued by General Manager (Personnel) of
Respondent, Indian Airlines, and it goes to show that Petitioner Sri Sunil Kumar has been appointed as Cabin Crew.
Further, in para 4 of said Ex.W1 it is specifically mentioned that, during the tenure of service in the company,
employee will be governed by the Indian Airlines Service Regulations applicable to the flying crew as framed and
amended by the company from time to time and further it is mentioned that during the tenure of service in Indian
airlines employee will be governed by the Indian Airlines Standing Orders (Regulations) concerning Discipline and
Appeals as framed and amended by IAL from time to time. Further Ex.W2/1 is the termination order dated 2.2.2023
issued by Regional Director -Southern Region of Air India Limited whereby the services of the Petitioner Sri Sunil
Kumar, Chief Cabin Crew has been terminated with immediate effect in terms of regulation and 13(a) of the Service
Regulations applicable to him. Further, document dated 2.2.2023 annexed with the termination letter i.e., Ex.W2/2
goes to show the reasons of issuing the termination order of the Petitioner Sri Sunil Kumar from service are
5218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
mentioned therein. This document contains the details of reasons for termination of the service of the Petitioner
which are reproduced as here under:-
“It has been reported that while operating AI-942 sector RUH-HYD on 01.01.2023 you had a verbal duel with Mr.
Premander Kumar Singh, another crew member, and thereafter both of you exchanged physical blows on each other,
in full view of the business class passengers.
Finally, Capt. Devesh Silwal, the Co-Pilot came out of the cockpit and separated both of you and diffused the
situation.
Subsequently, on 03.01.2023, you went to Mr Premander Kumar Singh's residence at around 11 pm with a group of
people and created nuisance. You had threatened his mother in the presence of the apartment Secretary. The next
day, Mr Premander Kumar Singh alongwith his father complained about this incident in Neredmet Police Station.
You were summoned to the Police Station and counselled by the SI not to repeat this again.
Your above acts have thus caused harm and damage to the reputation of the Company in the eyes of travelling. and
general public besides, unbecoming of a cabin and reflects poor management of CRM.
Your aforesaid acts clearly evidences that you have conducted yourself in a manner which is not conducive to the best
interests, credit and prestige of the Company. In such circumstances, the Company has no other option than to
terminate your employment under Regulation 13(a) of the Service Regulations applicable to you. As Regulation 13(a)
permits the Competent Authority to terminate the services of a workman without assigning any reasons, a letter of
simple termination/termination simpliciter, is attached herewith. This letter is being issued to you to convey the
reasons of termination separately without assigning the same in the letter of termination.
We reserve our rights to justify our action in terminating your services by leading evidence, before any Court of Law,
if and when required.”
Thus, from the document Ex.W2/1 and document Ex.W2/2, annexed with termination order goes to reveal that
services of the Petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 13 (a) of the Service
Regulations applicable to the Petitioner. In this context the reference of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Airlines Ltd., vs. Prabha D. Kanan AIR 2007 Supreme Court 548 is relevant wherein Hon’ble
Supreme Court have held:-
“Regulation 13 is invoked when the termination of the services is effected by reason of some act on the part of the
employee which does not amount to misconduct. It can be invoked:
(i) where an employee is rendered incompetent and unsuitable.
(ii) where continuance in employment may also constitute a grave security risk.
(iii) where there is justifiable lack of confidence.
(iv) where lack of confidence must have a direct correlation to the nature of duties performed.
(v) where the Board must consider it to be necessary in the interest of the Corporation to immediately terminate the
services of the employee concerned.
The provisions, therefore, provide for inbuilt safeguards.
In Ajit Kumar Nag (supra), a Three-Judge Bench of this Court had the occasion to construe Standing Order 20(vi) of
the Certified Standing Orders of Indian Oil Corporation which reads as under:
"Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence in a court of law or where the General Manager is
satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is neither expedient nor in the interest of security to continue the
workman, the workman may be removed or dismissed from service without following the procedure laid down under
III of this clause."
------
Referring to Tulsiram Patel (supra), this Court held that as security of a State is not involved and a limited power is
conferred upon the General Manager being the highest administrative head of the Corporation, it cannot be
contended that the power had been conferred upon a petty officer of the Corporation. It was further opined:
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5219
"35. We are equally not impressed and hence unable to uphold the contention that clause (vi) of Standing Order 20
confers a blanket or uncanalised power on the General Manager. In our judgment, sufficient guidelines and
safeguards have been provided in the Standing Orders themselves, such as (i) the power is conferred on the highest
administrative head of the Corporation; (ii) eventualities have been specifically and expressly stated in clause (vi) of
Standing Order 20; (iii) satisfaction of the General Manager that such an eventuality has arisen; (iv) recording of
reasons in writing; and (v) right of appeal against the decision of the General Manager. Such a provision, in our
considered view, cannot be held arbitrary or unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
The Court further opined that even in absence of an appeal, the employee is not remediless as a power of judicial
review would be applicable.
As has been held by this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag (supra), per se, the provisions cannot be held to be arbitrary or
discriminatory.”
Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the termination order issued by the Respondent under
Service Regulation 13(a) is legal and valid and there is no requirement of holding domestic enquiry in the present
case against the Petitioner in view of provision contained under Regulation 13(a) of Service Regulations applicable
to case of Petitioner. However, in the case of Indian Airlines Ltd., vs. Prabha D. Kanan AIR 2007 Supreme
Court 548, constitutionality and / or validity of Regulation 13(a) of Indian Airlines (flying crew) Service Regulation
has been held constitutionally valid.
7.
Now, let us examine whether the conduct of the Petitioner as enumerated in the document annexed with
Ex.W2/1 is covered under the Regulation 13(a) providing a reason to Respondent for issuing the termination order of
the Petitioner from service. As it is evident from the document Ex.W2/2 that on 1.1.2023 when the Petitioner was on
duty while operating A1- 942 sector RUH- HYD, the Petitioner had a verbal duel with Mr Premanand Kumar Singh
another crew member and thereafter both of them exchanged physical blows on each other in full view of the business
class passengers. Finally Capt. Devesh Silval, the Co-Pilot came out of the cockpit and separated both the of them
and diffused the situation. Further, it is mentioned in Ex.W2/2 that subsequently on 3.1.2023 Petitioner went to Mr
Premendra Kumar Singh's residence at around 11:00 PM with a group of people and created nuisance. Petitioner has
threatened his mother in the presence of the Apartment Secretary. The next today Mr Premanand Kumar Singh along
with his father complained about this incident in Neredmet Police Station. The Petitioner was summoned to the
Police Station and counselled by the SI not to repeat this again. Further, it is mentioned that above acts of the
Petitioner have thus caused harm and damage to the reputation of the company in the eyes of travelling and general
public besides unbecoming of a cabin crew and reflects poor management of CRM. Therefore, the Respondent was
of the view that the aforesaid acts clearly evidences that Petitioner have conducted himself in a manner which is not
conducive in the best interests, credit and prestige of the company. In such circumstances, the company has no other
5220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
option than to terminate the Petitioner’s employment under Regulation 13(a) of the Service Regulations applicable to
the workman.
8.
Thus, Respondent management has assigned cogent reason in Ex.W2/2 for issuing the termination order
dated 2.2.2023 of the Petitioner from employment and that assigned reason has been denied and disputed by
Petitioner. The aforementioned conduct of the Petitioner is quite unbecoming of as Chief Cabin Crew. Such conduct
of Petitioner not only endangered the security of the passengers on board Aeroplane but also of the Aeroplane as well.
Thus, Petitioner has shaken the confidence of the management by his aforementioned conduct that it was undesirable
to continue him in his employment. Thus, the aforementioned conduct of the Petitioner as mentioned in Ex.W2/2 is
grave and serious in nature. Petitioner was posted as Chief Cabin Crew and his conduct in view of the nature of his
post and duties is unbecoming of his employment. Moreover, the said incident has taken place in view of public i.e.,
passengers on board which has caused serious loss to the reputation and business of the Respondent. Therefore, the
conduct of Petitioner is not excusable in any circumstances as unbecoming of Chief Cabin Crew.
9.
As regard the loss of confidence of the Respondent management in the employee due to the incidence
narrated in the termination order, the reference of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Air India Corporation,
Bombay vs. V.A. Rebellow & anr, 1972 AIR 1343 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court have held:-
“48. In our view, loss of confidence in such circumstances cannot be considered to be mala fide. We are unable to
conceive of any rational challenge to the bona fides of the employer in making the impugned order in the above back-
ground. The complainant, it may be remembered had to deal with Air-Hostesses in the performance of his duties and
if the appellant was not fully satisfied beyond suspicion about his general conduct and behaviour while dealing with
them it cannot be said that loss of confidence was not bona fide. Once bona fide loss of confidence in affirmed the
impugned order must be considered to be immune from challenge. The opinion formed by the employer about the
suitability of his employee, for the job assigned to him even though erroneous, if bona fide, is in our opinion final and
not subject to review by the industrial adjudication. Such opinion may legitimately induce the employer to terminate
the employee's services; but such termination can on no rational grounds be considered to be for misconduct and
must, therefore be held to be permissible and immune from challenge.”
Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, I
am of the considered opinion that the termination order dated 2.2.2023 of the Petitioner from service issued by
Respondent under Regulation 13(a) is legal and valid. Moreover, Respondent management while passing the
termination order of the Petitioner has also disclosed the reason of issuing such order. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the impugned termination order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no
illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the said termination order hence, petition filed by the Petitioner against
termination order sans merit, liable to be dismissed.
AWARD
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5221
In view of the fore gone discussion, the action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the
Petitioner Sri Sunil Kumar, vide letter dated 2.2.2023 is held legal and justified. Petitioner is not entitled to any
relief as prayed for. As such, the petition filed by the Petitioner as devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 20th day of June, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri Sunil Kumar
MW1: NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1:
Photostat copy of appointment letter issued by Indian Airlines dated 19-7-2005
Ex.W2/1:
Photostat copy of termination letter No. RDSR/IFS/HYD/81011223/18 dated 2.2.2023
Ex.W2/2:
Photostat copy of lr. No. RDSR/IFS/HYD/81011223/17 dated 2.2.2023 Reg. reasons of termination
Ex.W3:
Photostat copy of email reply of Petitioner against the termination
Ex.W4:
Photostat copy of Vande Bharat Mission report issued by Respondent
Ex.W5:
Photostat copy of article published by Respondent 2019-2020
Ex.W6:
Photostat copy of photographs of Petitioner during Vande Bharat Mission during Covid-19
Ex.W7:
Photostat copy of death certificate of Petitioner's father
Ex.W8:
Photostat copy of Police verification certificate dated 12.3.2023
Ex.W9:
Photostat copy of promotion letter dated 13.1.2014
Ex.W10:
Photostat copy of fitness certificate of Petitioner
Ex.W11:
Photostat copy of Eye certificate
Ex.W12:
Photostat copy of legal notice dated 11.3.2023
Ex.W13:
Photostat copy of postal receipts for issuance of legal notice
Ex.W14:
Photostat copy of proof of delivery of legal notice
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 4 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1325.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्लल् ू.सी.एल.d
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
] नागपुर
ds iapkV (
16/2012-13) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं.
-22012/107/2012-
-(
-एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2025
S.O. 1325.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2012-13) 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.W.C.L, and received by the Central Government on 03/07/2025
5222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
[No. L-22012/107/2012– IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Deputy Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/16/2012-13
Date: 29.04.2025.
Party No.1:
1. The Chief General Manager,
Wani Area, Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Post – Urjagram Tadali,
Chandrapur (M.S).
2. The Sub Area Manager,
Neeljai O/c Mines, Wani Area,
Western Coalfields Ltd. Post – Neeljai,
Tah – Wani,
Yavatmal (M.S).
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Joint General Secretary,
All India SC/ST/Backward Class Employees Co-ordination Council, Wani,
Yavatmal (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 29th 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 Wani Area, Western Coalfields Ltd., and their
workman Shri. R.P. Lanjewar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/107/2012 (IR(CM-II)) dated 31.07.2012,
with the following schedule:-
“With reference to CIL’s Career growth to Personnel with ITI Certificate Holder, Whether the
Management’s denial to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri. R.P. Lanjewar ITI Certificate
Holder at par with his juniors who are drawing more wages in Wani Area of WCL is legal & justified? To
what monetary benefit the workman is entitled to?”
2.
Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since
07/03/2019. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner
has filed his affidavit as evidence. But petitioner has not turned up to the Court to establish the contents of the
affidavit as well as the contents of the statement of claim. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to establish his
case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court for long time 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 Management’s denial to remove anomaly/pay disparity in respect of Shri. R.P. Lanjewar ITI
Certificate Holder at par with his juniors who are drawing more wages in Wani Area of WCL is legal &
justified. The workman is not entitled to any monetary benefit.
Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1326.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj डब्लल् ू.सी.एल.d
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
] नागपुर
ds iapkV (
30/2017-18) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5223
[सं.
-22012/62/2017-
-(
-एम-II)]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2025
S. O. 1326.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2017-18) 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.W.C.L, and received by the Central Government on 03/07/2025
[No. L-22012/62/2017– IR (CM-II]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/30/2017-18
Date: 14.05.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sr. Manager (Mines),
Western Coalfields Ltd. Sasti Open Case Mines,
At Post. Sasti, Tah. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur
Chandrapur (M.S.)
V/s.
Party No.2:
Shri. Manohar Fulzele S/o Govinda Fulzele,
Ex. Employee, R/o Yenbodi, Tah. Ballarsha
Distt. Chandrapur
Chandrapur (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 14th May, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Ltd Sasti Open Cast Mines, and
their workman Shri Manohar Govinda Fulzele, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/62/2017 (IR(CM-II))
dated 16.11.2017, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the management of WCL through the Sr. Manager (Mines), Sasti Open Cast
Mine, Sasti Sub Area, Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur in termination of service of the applicant Shri Manohar
Govinda Fulzele, Ex. Workman w.e.f. 28.03.2013 is just, fair or legal? If not, to 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
08/04/2020. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner
has also filed his affidavit as evidence but petitioner is not coming to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit
as well as the contents of the statement of claim. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since 08/04/2020. 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 the Sr. Manager (Mines), Sasti Open Cast Mine, Sasti
Sub Area, Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur in termination of service of the applicant Shri Manohar Govinda
Fulzele, Ex. Workman w.e.f. 28.03.2013 is just, fair or legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
5224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2025
का. आ. 1327.––औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@JeU;k;ky;
ds iapkV ¼dsUnzh;½&03@2005¼lhvkbZ,l&03@2014½¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060000032005½
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y– 12012/68/2005 vkbZ vkj (ch-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2025
S.O. 1327.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award(Ref. 03/2005(CIS-03/2014) (CNR-RJKT060000032005) of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management Bank of Baroda and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/68/2005- IR(B-II]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&03@2005¼lhvkbZ,l&03@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060000032005½
fnukad LFkkfir%01-10-2005
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz-
,y&12012@68@2005¼vkbZvkj¼ch&kk½½ fn-%30-08-2005
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
f'kouanu d';i iq= ek/kks yky dksyh] fuoklh& HkksbZ
eksgYyk] dksVM+h] dksVk
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
1&czkap eSustj] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk] jkeiqjk] dksVk
2&jhtuy eSustj] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk] >kykokM+
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstdx.k
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
dksbZ mifLFkr ugha
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh lqjs'k ekFkqj
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fn-% 26-11-2024
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 30-08-2005 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks
vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izkIr gqvk gS%&
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5225
"Whether the workman Shri Shiv Nandan Kashyap was in continuous service of the Bank from
01.10.1995 to 31.10.2001? If yes, whether the action of termination the service of the workman by
the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Rampura Kota w.e.f. 31.10.2001 is legal and justified? If not to
what relief the employees are entitled to and from which date?"
2&
mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa
izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dh izFke
fu;qfDr izfri{kh ds ;gka prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i eas fnukad 01-10-95 dks gqbZ FkhA izkFkhZ dks 1200@&:- ekfld osru izfri{kh }kjk fn;k
tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dh ;g fu;qfDr cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk }kjk jkeiqjk cktkj dksVk esa gqbZ Fkh rFkk ogka ij gh izkFkhZ ds izfri{kh ds fu;kstu esa fujarj
prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Z fd;kA izkFkhZ ls fu;kstd }kjk cSad ds lHkh dk;Z vko';drkuqlkj fy, tkrs Fks] tSls lQkbZ djuk] ikuh
Hkjuk o ikuh fiykuk rFkk tks Hkh dk;Z izkFkhZ dks fn, tkrs Fks] izkFkhZ usduh;rh o bZekunkjh ls dk;Z djrk jgkA izkFkhZ ls dHkh Hkh fdlh cSad
deZpkjh dks vFkok fdlh dks Hkh dksbZ dHkh f'kdk;r ugha gqbZA izkFkhZ us fnukad 01-10-95 ls 31-10-2001 rd yxkrkj prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ij dk;Z
fd;k ijarq vpkud gh fu;kstd us fn- 01-10-2001 ls izkFkhZ dks M~;wVh ij ysus ls badkj dj fn;kA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us 6 lky ,d ekg fcuk
fdlh lfoZl cszd ds fu;kstd ds v/khu dk;Z fd;k] ftldk osru fu;kstd }kjk 1200@&:- izfrekg ds fglkc ls izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk
jgk gSA fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls vygsnk djus iwoZ uksfVl] uksfVl osru ugha fn;k x;k izkFkhZ dks gVkrs le; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25
,Q o ,u dh ikyuk Hkh ugha dh xbZ gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr e; leLr fiNys ykHkksa ds lsok ij cgkyh
dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
3&
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd laLFkku ds dwyjksa esa ikuh Hkjuk] rFkk
laLFkku dh lQkbZ djuk] laLFkku ds LFkk;h dk;Z dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs gSA bl izdkj ds dk;Z vdlj Msyh oStst ij djk, tkrs gSA izfri{kh
laLFkku esa fu;qfDr Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk izkIr oS/kkfud fu;eksa ,oa fn'kkfunsZ'kksa ls vkeaf=r gS rFkk ,slh fLFkfr ds fy, fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k dk vuqlj.k
gksrk gSA dsUnz ljdkj }kjk fn, x, fn'kk funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr jkstxkj dk;kZy; ds ek/;e ls dh tkrh gS ,oa
fu;qfDr dsoy Lohd`r inksa ij gh dh tk ldrh gSA dsUnzh; ljdkj ds mijksDr of.kZr fn'kkfunsZ'kksa dh vuqikyuk cSad dk oS/kkfud nkf;Ro gSA
izkFkhZ dk uke dHkh Hkh jkstxkj dk;kZy; }kjk izLrkfor ugha fd;k x;k gS] u gh mls fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds rgr fu;qfDr nh xbZ gS blfy, mldk
dFku fd mls prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k] loZFkk vlR; gSA izfri{kh ,d jk"Vªhd`r cSad gS ftlesa fu;qfDr ds fy, fu;e o ,d p;u
izfdz;k cuh gqbZ gS] ftudks viuk, fcuk fdlh O;fDr dks fu;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA izfri{kh ds ;gka ukSdjh esa j[ks tkus ls iwoZ jkstxkj
dk;kZy; ls ;ksX; mEehnokjksa ds uke eaxok, tkrs gS mudh ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij mudh fyf[kr ijh{kk gksrh gS] mlesa mRrh.kZ gksus ij mudk
HkkSfrd lk{kkRdkj ,d cksMZ }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA lk{kkRdkj esa lQy gksus ij gh lQy mEehnokjksa dks fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k tkrk gS] rc gh
og izfri{kh ds ;gka fu;qDr ekuk tkrk gSA izkFkhZ ds ekeys esas ,slh dksbZ izfdz;k ugha gqbZ gS] bl dkj.k ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izfri{kh us
izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr fd;k gSA 'kk[kk izca/kd dks izfri{kh laLFkku esa fu;qfDr dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSA fu;qfDr i= flQZ tujy eSustj }kjk
gh p;u izfdz;k ds ckn tkjh fd, tkrs gSA izkFkhZ dks bl izdkj dk dksbZ fu;qfDr i= tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha ekuk tk
ldrk fd izkFkhZ] izfri{kh laLFkku esa fu;ksftr jgk gSA izfri{kh laLFkku esa dbZ dk;Z ,sls gksra gS ftudk laca/k laLFkku esa gksus okys cSafdx dk;Z ls
ugha gS] u gh bl izdkj dk dk;Z iwjs fnu ds fy, gh gksrk gS] bu dk;kZsa dks cSad 'kq: gksus ls iwoZ ifjlj dh lQkbZ djuk] cSad 'kq: gksus ls iwoZ
ikuh ds eVds Hkjus vkfn gS] ftudks laLFkku esa fu;ksftr deZpkjh ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA izfri{kh laLFkku ds vykok izkFkhZ vU; LFkkuksa ij
dk;Z djus dks Lora= Fkk] bl le; Hkh vU;= og xsuQyh ,EiykW;M gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks cSad lsok esa dHkh prqFkZ Js.kh deZpkjh ds :i esa
fnukad 01-10-95 esa fu;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k ,oa u gh bl vk'k; dk dksbZ fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk mDr pj.k esa of.kZr gS
fd mlds }kjk dqyjksa esa ikuh Hkjuk] lQkbZ djuk vkfn dk;Z fd, tkrs Fks bl izd`fr ds dk;Z dsoy nSfud osru Hkksxh ds }kjk gh laikfnr fd,
tkrs gSA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr vizkFkhZ }kjk fdlh fu;qfDr i= ds ek/;e ls ugha dh xbZ gS vr% lekiu gsrq fdlh uksfVl dks fn, tkus dk iz'u
mRiUu ugha gksrkA loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ,-mekjkuh cuke jftLVªkj dks vkWi lkslk;Vh ,oa vU; ds okn esa ;g /kkfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn fu;qfDr
voS/kkfud :i ls dh xbZ gS rks ,slh voS/kkfudrk dks fdlh Hkh lafof/k ds varxZr izekf.kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk mRrj
izns'k jkT; cuke uhjt voLFkh ¼2006 ¼1½ ,llhlh 667½ esa fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd izfdz;k ds vuqlj.k ds vHkko esa fdlh deZpkjh dh fu;qfDr
voS/k ,oa funkaRed gSA vfrfjDr loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fn- 10-04-2006 dks 5 U;k;k/kh'kksa dh [kaMihB ds varxZr& lsdzsVjh dukZVd jkT; cuke
meknsoh ,oa vU; ds izdj.k esa ;g vuqeksfnr fd;k gS fd fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuqlj.k ds vHkko esa fdlh vLFkk;h fu;qfDr dks LFkk;h ugha cuk;k
tk ldrk vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
4&
lk{; esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a o vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vkse izdk'k eh.kk ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls ijLij ftjg dh x;hA izkFkhZ
dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA
5&
izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls vkt 4-00 ih-,e- rd fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k] vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2024 esa of.kZrkuqlkj i=koyh
ij miyC/k lkexzh ,oa vizkFkhZ dh cgl ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk jgk gSA
5&
vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dks lquk x;k] i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA;|fi vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh vksj ls {ks=kf/kdkj ds fcUnw ds ij dksbZ
vkifRr ugha dh xbZ gS fdUrq U;k;ky; dks izdj.k esa loZizFke Lor% ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k ;g izdj.k U;k;kf/kdj.k ds {ks=kf/kdj esa vkrk gS ;k
ughaA mDr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr dj izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVkus dh fn-01-11-2001 vafdr dh xbZ tcfd izkIr jsQzsUl vkns'k
fuEukuqlkj gS%&"Whether the workman Shri Shiv Nandan Kashyap was in continuous service of the Bank from
01.10.1995 to 31.10.2001? If yes, whether the action of termination the service of the workman by the Branch
Manager, Bank of Baroda, Rampura Kota w.e.f. 31.10.2001 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the employees
are entitled to and from which date?" bl izdkj Li"V gS fd jsQjsal@fookn vf/klwpuk esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk fn- 31-10-2001 vafdr
gS tcfd LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse o 'kiFk i= esa 01-11-2001 gSA ,sls esa ;g fLFkfr Li"V ugha gS fd ;g U;k;ky; dkSulh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad
ekudj jsQjsal dk fuLrkj.k djsxkA D;k ;g U;k;ky; izkFkhZ i{k }kjk crk;h xbZ frfFk ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k dj
5226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ldrk gS vFkok ugha\ bl ckcr ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ^^egkohj d.MDVj cuke uUn fd'kksj&2003
McY;w,ylh¼jkt-½ ;w-lh- i`"B 424^^ ds isjk uEcj 12 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk fuEu vfHker izdV fd;k x;k gS%&"Thus, in view of the
above, I reach the inescapable conclusion that the Labour Court has no competence to correct/modify/amend/alter the
terms of the reference or mention the date of termination etc., or proceed with the reference and accepting the date of
termination as suggested by the workman and in case it does so the award becomes nullity, being without jurisdiction,
based on the bad reference."
7&
blh fu.kZ; ds isjk la[;k 11 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ^^enuiky flag cuke mRrjizns'k jkT; ,oa vU;&,vkbZvkj 2000
lqizhe dksVZ i`"B 537^^ dk mYys[k Hkh fd;k x;k gS ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ;g er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS fd Je U;k;ky; dk
{ks=kf/kdkj jsQzsUl esa vafdr fcUnq rd gh lhfer gksrk gS vkSj mls jQzsUl ls ijs tkdj i{kdkjksa ds ukeksa ;k frfFk;ksa esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ
ifjorZu ;k la'kks/ku djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA ukeksa o frfFk;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu ;k la'kks/ku djokuk gS rks i{kdkjksa dks leqfpr ljdkj ds
le{k viuk i{k j[kdj bl ckcr dk;Zokgh djokuh gksxhA
8&
vr% mDr fu.kZ;ksa ds izdk'k esa ;g Li"V gS fd jsQzsUl@vf/klwpuk esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk fn-31-10-2001 ,oa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse o
'kiFk i= esa lsok i`Fkdrk fn-01-11-2001 fHkUu gksus ls U;k;ky; Dyse esa vafdr lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad dks vk/kkj ekudj fu.kZ; ikfjr ugha dj
ldrk gS D;ksafd ,slk fu.kZ; {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksxk vkSj 'kwU; gksxkA ysfdu ;g U;k;ky; tc rd fd jsQjsal esa la'kks/ku u gks tk, rc
rd vfxze dk;Zokgh ugha dj ldrkA fygktk bl n`f"V ls pwWfd gLrxr jsQzsUl vkns'k ,oa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa mls gVkus dh frfFk;ka
vyx&vyx gS ,sls esa fQygky ;g izdj.k bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS] ijUrq i{kdkj ;fn leqfpr ljdkj ls bl
ckcr jsQzsUl vkns'k esa la'kks/ku djokdj U;k;ky; esa is'k djrs gSa rks U;k;ky; ,sls jQzsUl vkns'k ij fof/k vuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj ldrk gSA
ifj.kker% Je ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk viuh izklkafxd vf/klwpuk fn- 30-08-2005 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@fookn dks blh
vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd of.kZr jsQzsUl vf/klwpuk ,oa LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa izkFkhZ dh lsok i`Fkdrk frfFk;ka vyx&vyx gS vkSj
LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa vafdr frfFk dks U;k;ky; vk/kkj ekudj fu.kZ; ikfjr ugha dj ldrk gS D;ksafd bl jsQzsUl vkns'k esa vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr
fd;k tkuk 'kwU; ,oa {ks=kf/kdkj ds vHkko dk gksxkA i{kdkj ;fn leqfpr ljdkj ls izkFkhZ dh lsok ls gVkus dh frFkh ckcr jsQzsUl vkns'k esa
la'kks/ku djokdj is'k djsa rks izdj.k esa fof/k vuqlkj fuLrkj.k dh dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsxhA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 26-11-2024 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj
dks izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2025
का. आ. 1328.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी सी सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
] िनबाि-I,ds iapkV (
52/2007)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -20012/103/2007-vkbZ-vkj-lh एम-I]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2025
S.O. 1328.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 14/07/2025.
[No. L-22012/103/2007– 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. 52/2007
Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5227
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri Chandra Prakash, Manager (HR)
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 02/07/2025
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-20012/103/2007-(IR(CM-I)) dated 25/10/2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery
Mazdoor Sangh, Kusunda, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Dhansar Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing the services
of Sh. Dilip Kr. Sao, M/Loader, w.e.f. 3.6.2005 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled?”
2. On receiving order no. L-20012/103/2007-(IR(CM-I)) dated 25/10/2007 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 52 of 2007 was registered on 07.11.2007 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 regd. notice none appeared from either side, the regd. notice was sent to workman/union
returned with remarks “Left return to sender” and thereafter no step was taken on behalf of the workman. On
13.06.2025, Sri Chandra Prakash, Manager (HR) of management appeared. The case record shows that this case is of
the year 2007 and since then no step has been taken from the side of the workman which shows that he has no interest
in this case and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.
4. 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 दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2025
का. आ. 1329.–– vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी सी सीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
] िनबाि-I,ds iapkV (
31/2007) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -20012/41/2005-vkbZ-vkj-lh एम-I]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2025
S.O. 1329.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 14/07/2025
[No. L-22012/41/2005–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. 31/2007
Employer in relation to the management of Block-II Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.
5228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 02/07/2025
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-20012/41/2005 (IR(CM-I)) dated 21/31.05.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of Block-II Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Jt. General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of Block-II Area of M/s BCCL in not paying overtime for 337
hours, D.A. for 32 days and cost of maintenance of vehicle amounting to Rs. 1142.25 to Shri Suresh
Chowhan, Driver is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?”
2. On receiving order no. L-20012/41/2005 (IR(CM-I)) dated 21/31.05.2007 Government of India, Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 31 of 2007 was registered on 03.07.2007 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, the registered post of union was returned with remarks “Addressee Moved.” and thereafter
no further step was taken from the side of the workman whereas Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate appeared from the
side of the management and filed his letter of authority but the workman never appeared before the Tribunal since
03.07.2007.
4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpires that the workman never appeared before this Tribunal for a
period of 18 years which shows that the workman has no interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this
case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.
5. 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 दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1330.––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;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
] िनबाि-I,ds iapkV (
04/2004) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -20012/213/2003-vkbZ-vkj-lhएम-I]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2025
S.O. 1330.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 04/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5229
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
ECL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 14/07/2025
[No. L-22012/213/2003–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. 04/2004
Employer in relation to the management of Mugma Area of M/s. ECL, Dhanbad.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate.
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 02/07/2025
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-20012/213/2003-IR(C-I) dated 24/12/2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of Mugma Area of M/s. ECL and their workman through Secretary, Bihar Colliery
Kamgar Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Badjna Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s ECL in
dismissing Sri Shambhu Bhuia, U.G. Loader, vide order dated 25/30.11.98 of the General Manager,
Mugma Area of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd., is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned
workman entitled?”
2. On receiving order no. L-20012/213/2003-IR(C-I) dated 24/12/2003 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 04 of 2004 was registered on 02.01.2004 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 regd. notice, written statement has been filed by Sri K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate on behalf of
the workman. Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate appeared from the side of the management and filed his letter of
authority on 22.03.2005. It further transpires that written statement and rejoinder has been filed by the management
but when the case record was put up after a long gap, registered notices were again sent and thereafter no step was
taken from the side of the workman. Whereas Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate appeared from the side of the
management but the workman never appeared before the Tribunal since 15.02.2006.
4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpires that the workman never appeared before this Tribunal for a
period of 19 years which shows that the workman has lost his interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of
justice, this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.
5. 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
5230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1331.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बी सी सीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सि
-
] िनबाि-I,ds iapkV (
64/2004)
dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -20012/61/2004-vkbZ-vkj-lh एम-I]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2025
S.O. 1331.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 14/07/2025
[No. L-22012/61/2004–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. 64/2004
Employer in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.
AND.
Their workman.
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :- Sri N. Nath, O.S. Legal (HQ)
For the workman. :- None.
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 02/07/2025
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-20012/61/2004- IR(C-I) dated 28/06/2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Vice President, Dhanbad
Colliery Karamchari Sangh, Hirapur, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL, Kustore Area in dismissing Sh. Roshan Mahato,
Miner Loader from service w.e.f. 25.1.2000 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief is the said
workman entitled?”
2. On receiving order no. L-20012/61/2004-IR(C-I) dated 28/06/2004 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 64 of 2004 was registered on 12.07.2004 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 regd. notice, none appeared from either side though on 13.06.2025, Sri N. Nath O.S. Legal (HQ)
of management appeared. The case record shows that after issuance of notice, the workman never appeared before the
Tribunal since the year 2004, which makes it clear that the workman has no interest in this case and therefore, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.
4. 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
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5231
नई दिल्ली, 14 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1332.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारती ाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
-
सि
-
] ल नऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान
/
) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -20013/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj-lh एम- II]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th July, 2025
S.O. 1332.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 32/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/07/2025.
[No. L-22013/01/2025–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 32/2020
Ref. No. D-826/AB/2020/18/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020/09.09.2020
BETWEEN
1. Shri Ashok Kumar, S/o Shri Phool Chandra, Village-Simrawa, Post-Khas Thana, Tehsil-Mitauli, Distt.-
Lakhimpur-Kheri (UP).
2. Sh. Rajender Saxena (Representative) M/s Keshav Singh and Ors. T.P.No. 315, Katia Tolla,
Shahajanpur (UP).
AND
1. The General Manager (Principal Employer) Food Corporation of India, Regional office, T.C.3, V-Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow(UP).
2. The Regional Manager (Appointing Authority), Food Corporation of India (FCI), Distt. Office,
Shahjahanpur (UP).
AWARD
By order No. D-826/AB/2020/18/IRDDN dated 03.09.2020/09.09.202 the present industrial dispute has been
referred for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following
schedule:
“Whether the termination of the service of Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Phool Chanddra, who was engaged in
Roja Depot of FCI, Shahajanpur, (UP) by M/s Keshav Singh, Contractor of FCI, the period 08.07.2008 to
23.04.2010 is proper and justified. If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?"
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 32/2020 has been registered on 22.10.2020.
On 04.03.2021 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit.
Facts stated in the claim petition are in brief that claimant was initially appointed with the respondent; however
without following the provision of retrenchment as provided under section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) his services were dispensed on 24.04.2020.
5232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On behalf of the respondent statement of defense filed on 10.02.2023 in which preliminary objection also taken by the
respondent.
After filing of the written statement by respondent, in spite of opportunities given to workman, he neither filed
rejoinder nor evidence in support of his case on affidavit
Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records.
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his case on
affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble
High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is
challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file
written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
09th April, 2024
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
नई दिल्ली, 15 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1333.––औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ़- II ds iapkV (01/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y -39025/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj-(ch-II)-14]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5233
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2025
S.O. 1333.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda
and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2025- IR (B-II)-14]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
PRESIDING OFFICER MR. KAMAL KANT
ID No.01/2024
United Forum of We Bankers, New MIG-53, Hemant Vihar, Barra-2, Kanpur-208027
………Workers Union
Versus
Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Amritsar
……….Management
Present:
Mr. Kamlesh Chaturvedi, AR for workers union along with Ms. Shaphali Jain.
None for Management.
ORDER:21.02.2025
Workman along with her AR is present since morning, but nobody is present on behalf of the
management. It is already 01:45 PM, therefore, management is proceeded ex parte.
In this case, on 12.11.2024, ld. counsel for the management has made a statement, which reads as follow:
“That the bank is ready to transfer the workman at Jammu subject to the condition she is examined
by a medical board constituted by Civil Surgeon, Jammu and Civil Surgeon Jammu further give observation
that facility of treatment are not available as required by the workman at Katra.”
In view of the aforesaid statement of ld. counsel for management, this Tribunal has directed CMO Jammu to
constitute a medical board and assess the disability of the workman and report whether the facility of treatment as
required by the workman are available at Katra or not and the case was adjourned for 16.12.2024. On 16.12.2024,
medical report conducted by the medical board was produced by the workman. However, CMO has not clarified
whether the facility to treat the workman is available at Katra or not and this Tribunal has directed Director Health
Services, Jammu/Srinagar to examine the matter and report whether the facility, of the treatment of disease for which
workman is suffering, is available at Katra or not by next date of hearing and the case was fixed on 03.02.2025.
On 03.02.2025, report of Director, health services was placed on record by the AR for union and in the said
report dated 21.12.2024 submitted by the Director, Health Services, Jammu, he has sent the report furnished by Block
Medical Board, CHC Katra, which reads as follow:-
“In compliance to your office letter no.DHS/J/Gen/2132-34 dated 19.12.2024, it is stated that the
treatment for ankylosing spondylitis with severe involvement of cervical, dorsal, lumber spine with both
sacroiliac X hip joints with gross stiffness with cervical X lumber rediculopathy with both hands poor grip X
numbness hands X legs with X requiring cervical lumber support is not available at CHC Katra due to
unavailability of Orthopaedic and Neurology Consultants.”
On 03.02.2025, ld. counsel for the management stated that he would try to get the applicant transferred at
Jammu on the basis of the report, if it is in her favour and the case was fixed on 21.02.2025.
In this case, reference was received from the Central Government bearing no.08(55)/2023/RLC/JMU dated
05.04.2024, which reads as follow:
“Whether the action of the management of the Chief General Manager, HRM, Bank of Baroda, Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400051 and the regional manager, Bank of Baroda, Amritsar for not considering transfer
request from Katra to Jammu and special leave w.e.f. 20.08.2022 to its workman is legal and justified? If
not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
In view of the position explained above and this fact that the Director, Health Services, Jammu has already
sent his report as reproduced above that the treatment, which the workman required for her disease, is not available at
5234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Katra, the management is directed to get the workman transferred from Katra to Jammu with immediate effect.
So far as other issues are concerned, workman is directed to lead its evidence on those issues and file
affidavit regarding the same on the next date. The case is adjourned for 16.04.2025 for filing affidavit of workmen.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 15 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1334.––औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj रत्नाकर बैंक जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@JeU;k;ky कोल्िाृुर ds iapkV (07/2014)izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. ,y -12012/74/2014-vkbZ-vkj-(ch-I)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 15th July, 2025
S.O. 1334.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07/2014) of the Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kolhapur as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Ratnakar Bank Limited and
their workmen.
[No. L-12012/74/2014- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, AT KOLHAPUR.
Reference(IT) No.07/2014
Between :
Ratnakar Bank Limited,
1st Lane, Shahupuri, Kolhapur
(Through its Vice-President)
.. First Party.
And
Shri Avadhoot Prabhakar Ghorpade
A/p. Khadakewada,
Tal. Kagal, Dist. Kolhapur.
.. Second Party.
CORAM : S. S. Khandekar, Presiding Officer.
(J.O. Code :- MH-02957)
IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S.10 OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES : None for First Party.
Shri S. K. Patil, Advocate for Second Party.
AWARD :-
(Date : 29.03.2025)
1.
This is a reference, referred by the appropriate Government, in exercise of its power under clause (d) of Sub-
section (1) and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, vide order dated 16.12.2014, to
adjudicate the dispute between the parties with following schedule “Whether the action of the management of
Ratnakar Bank Limited in terminating the services of Shri Avdhoot Prabhakar Ghorpade, w.e.f. 05.08.2013, is
justified? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5235
2.
On reference of this dispute the Second Party workman filed its statement of claim at Exh.U-3. The
contentions and submissions of the workman as per statement of claim are summarized as follows:-
a) The workman was working with the First Party Bank in the capacity of Peon in clause-IV category in
its Rukadi Branch.
b) He was issued with an order of suspension dated 28.07.2009, alleging charges of misappropriation.
c) Thereafter, after further lapse of 10 months he was issued with the charge-sheet dated 26.05.2010.
d) The workman submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 23.03.2011, denying all the charges leveled
against him.
e) The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the workman by conducting domestic enquiry.
f) The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and findings, which was replied by the workman on 25.07.2013.
g) The workman was thereafter issued with an order of dismissal dated 05.08.2013.
h) The workman preferred an appeal to the appellate authority of the Bank, which was rejected.
i) The workman submits that the order of dismissal issued upon him is illegal and unjustified. The order of
dismissal was proceeded by issuance of charge-sheet and conducting domestic enquiry. The domestic
enquiry conducted against him is in total violation and in utter disregard of the principle of natural justice.
j) It is also submitted that the Bank has not considered the objection of the workman in respect of
appointment of new Enquiry Officer in place of the earlier Enquiry Officer.
k) It is also submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and not based on evidence before
him. The Enquiry Officer has failed to consider the evidence on record and material points. Also the
materials admissions by the witness of the management during the cross-examination is ignored.
3.
The First Party Bank appeared in the matter and filed its written-statement at Exh.C-2, inter-alia, denying the
entire contentions and submissions of the workman in his statement of claim. On behalf of the Bank it is submitted as
follows:-
a) The workman was employee with Bank at its Rukadi Branch as Peon. Being relatively small establishment the
workman was responsible for undertaking some additional duties.
b) In the month of June 2009, the Branch Manager of the concerned Branch received a Complaint in respect of
unauthorized withdrawal from saving account of a customer in July 2008.
c) Upon preliminary, enquiry, it was revealed that there has been multiple withdrawals from May-July 2008 for
which withdrawal slips could not be traced.
d) On questioning the workman did not give satisfactory answer however later on he was voluntarily tendered his
confession on 03.06.2009. In the said confession letter the workman has clearly mentioned that from June 2007,
onwards he has unlawfully withdrawn money from 25-30 different bank accounts from time to time, by forging
signature of the customer amounting to about 3,00,000/-. In the confession letter he agreed to compensate the
Bank for the last cause of it.
e) The Bank submits that domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is by adherence to
the principle of natural justice. The employee was given due opportunity to depend himself
and participate in the inquiry proceedings.
f) The Bank further submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence
before him and not perverse.
g) It is also submitted by the Bank that, the workman did not examine himself in the enquiry
although ample opportunity was given to him.
4. Since the workman had assailed the conduct of the enquiry and also the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issues
were framed at Exh.O-8 and the same have been decided as preliminary issues vide Part I Award dtd.
04.09.2019. My Ld. Predecessor observed as follows :-
: ORDER :
1)
The domestic enquiry conducted against the Second Party Workman is legal and proper.
2)
The findings of the Enquiry Officer are legal and not perverse.
5.
It is observed in Part I Award that the workman was issued with the charge-sheet dated 26.05.2010 and his
explanation was called for. Thereafter enquiry was initiated against him by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The
workman participated in the enquiry through his defence representative, who was a Advocate. The workman was
5236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
supplied with all documents filed during the enquiry. He was also given an opportunity to examine the management
witness at length. He was given copy of the enquiry proceedings. The workman was also granted opportunity to
examine himself during the enquiry.
After discussing the facts and evidence, it is concluded that though opportunity was granted to the workman
to lead evidence on his behalf, he has failed to avail the same.
6.
It is also discussed that the charges leveled against the workman as per the charge-sheet dated 26.05.2010
was in respect of the illegal transaction committed by the workman, which amounted to act of misappropriation. The
detail of the facts to arrive at such allegations are mentioned clearly in the charge-sheet. It is alleged that on
21.04.2007, the workman debited total amount to Rs.4500/- from the FDR loan account of 3 customers and credited it
to his saving account. In similar way on 03.05.2007 he has debited an amount of Rs.3800/- from account of a
customer and credited to his own saving account and also intentionally destroyed withdrawal slip from the record. It
is further alleged that, similarly, on 01.10.2007, he debited a total amount of Rs.6100/- from account of 4 customers
and credited the same to his saving account. Thereafter for a period between 16.01.2008 to 02.07.2008, he has
withdrawn amount from time to time from the account of total 16 customers. Further it is alleged that he has not kept
the withdrawal slips of about 38 customers on record between the period from 09.06.2008 to 30.07.2009. At the time
of transaction, in this account the workman has used the tailor ID of Satish Kulkarni and has misappropriated the
amount and also destroyed the related challans.
7.
The workman immediately did not submit his explanation to the charge-sheet and vide an application dated
27.10.2010 called for certain documents from the Bank so as to submit his explanation. On 23.03.2011, the workman
submitted his explanation. Vide his explanation he has denied the charges which were leveled against him. However
the documents filed in the enquiry shows that on 03.06.2009, the workman has submitted in writing, admitting that
he has misappropriated the amount. Further the workman has accepted the responsibility and submitted that he is
ready to make good the loss caused to the Bank. However the workman in his explanation to the charge-sheet has not
made any submission in respect of this application dated 03.06.2009.
8.
Even otherwise, during enquiry, the Bank has filed voluminous documents on record to show that the
workman has conducted the transactions as alleged against him in the charge-sheet. The Bank has also examined 2
witness on its behalf to substantiate the charges leveled against the workman. Both the witness have stated in support
of the charge-sheet as well as documents filed on record. The workman in the cross-examination could not show
anything to discard the said contentions of the witness. Also the workman has given a confession letter to the Bank
that he is responsible for such unauthorized withdrawals, which he has not retaliated.
9.
Thus, it is concluded that there is prudent and probable material before the Enquiry Officer so as to link the
workman with the alleged misconduct. It therefore cannot be said that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse.
10.
Thus, the remaining issues for adjudication are as follows :-
ISSUES
FINDINGS
3.
Whether the second party workman
proves that the dismissal order dtd. 5.8.2013
is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be
quash and set aside ?
In the Negative.
4.
Whether the second party workman is
entitled to the reliefs of reinstatement,
continuity of service and full back wages
along with all consequential benefits ?
In the Negative.
5.
What Award ?
As per final
order.
REASONS :
AS TO ISSUES NO. 3 & 4 :-
11.
In a given case if the adjudicating forum has arrived at the conclusion that the enquiry is fair and proper and
findings of enquiry officer are not perverse, the initial burden to prove that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate considering the misconduct is upon the employee / workmen. Only when the said burden is
satisfactorily discharged, the onus shifts upon the employer to disprove the same.
12.
In the present matter, although Part I judgment came to be delivered on 4.9.2019 it required certain time for
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5237
its publication and finally the Part I Award came to be published on 15.12.2023. Thereafter also, the litigating parties
sought time on various dates. Ultimately, the first party bank remained unrepresented on account of withdrawal of
Vakalatnama of its Counsel. Also, the second party workman instead of proceeding with the reference, preferred
application Exh.U-13 on 11.12.2024 for amendment. The rejection thereof was challenged by the second party before
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by way of W.P. No. 2489/2025. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide judgment
dtd.25.2.2025 rejected the same.
13.
The second party filed its affidavit on 21.3.2025 vide Exh.U-26. As the either first party remained absent
since long no cross order came to be passed on the same day and matter came to be listed for arguments.
14.
The Ld. Counsel for the second party filed case laws with list Exh.U-28 and U-29 respectively as follows :-
a)
Sachiv/General Manager, District Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer 2011 (2) UAD 1
In the said case, the employer failed to prove charges of embezzlement. It is concluded that although
workmen committed some irregularities but these were not sufficient for punishment of dismissal. Thus, the facts of
said case are distinct from the present matter.
b)
Director, Gangadhar Mishra vs. Director, Textbook Production and Marketing 2005 (II) OLR 663
In the said case, the duty of the employee was to assist junior Auditor and had no independent responsibility.
c)
Punjab National Bank vs. Kartar Singh 2023 III CLR 843
In the said case, the employee had tampered with marking his attendance and withdrawing sum from his
account without sufficient balance. Also the employer did not decide the appeal for 7 years. Thus, the facts are
distinct.
15.
The Ld. Counsel for the second party argued in consonance with the pleadings raised through statement of
claim. It is argued that u/s. 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this Tribunal has ample powers to grant suitable
relief considering the alleged misconduct. It is argued that befitting orders considering the facts of the case be passed
as dismissal results in severe and grievous loss of the employee.
16.
In the present matter, this Tribunal has already discussed that case laws relied by the second party are not
applicable. The misconduct of the second party as can be seen from termination order itself is serious and cannot be
handled lightly. My Ld. Predecessor has already concluded that the second party admitted his misconduct and also
failed to lead any evidence during enquiry. Trust and faith upon the employee is sine-quo-none for employment in
banking industry. Thus, no leniency can be shown in the facts of the case. The employee is required to show that the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
17.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Ors. vs. Munna Lal
Jain 2005 I CLR 821 was pleased to observe as under ;
It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must
record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law.Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial
system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out.
In the present matter, the punishment is befitting the misconduct. Hence, the issues no. 3 & 4 are answered
accordingly.
AS TO ISSUES NO. 5 :-
18.
The action of the management of Ratnakar Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Avdhoot
Prabhakar Ghorpade w.e.f. 5.8.2013 is justified. The workman is not entitled for any reliefs. Accordingly the
following order is passed :-
: ORDER :
1.
The reference is answered in the negative.
2.
No order as to costs.
3.
Inform to the Central Government accordingly.
Kolhapur.
S. S. KHANDEKAR, Presiding Officer
Date : 29.03.2025.
Industrial Tribunal No.1, Kolhapur.
5238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Argued on
: 25.03.2025
Dictated on
: 29.03.2025
Transcribed on
: 01.04.2025
Checked and signed on
: 01.04.2025
नई दिल्ली, 16 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1335.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
– सि –
] िबलृुर ds iapkV(एलसी/आर-80/2015
) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -20012/58/2015-vkbZ-vkj-lh एम-II]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2025
S.O. 1335.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/80/2015) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of SECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/2025.
[No. L-22012/58/2015–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/80/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
President
South Eastern Koyla Mazdoor Congress
(INTUC),
Jamuna Kotma Region,
B-24, Civil Lines, Anuppur (M.P.)-484336
Workman
Versus
Sub-Regional Manager
Kotma Gobindas Sub Region, SECL
Post Office – Pasaan, Anuppur (M.P.)-484444
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of June- 2025.)
As per letter dated 14/09/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-22012/58/2015/IR(CM-II) dt.
14/09/2015. The dispute under reference related to :-
“
”
Notices were sent to the parties after registering a case on the basis of reference. They appeared and filed
their respective statements of claims and defense.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5239
The case of the workman union, as taken by them in their statement of claim is mainly that the workman
Manish Kumar Tripathi is member of the union and is at present working as Data Entry Operator in Kotma Gobinda
Siding of SECL, the union is a registered union and is affiliated INTUC. The workman was appointed as Land Oustee
because lands owned by his family were acquired by the management of SECL for Coal Extraction and according to
the rehabilitation scheme, one member of the family was to be given a job in the Colliery if his land was acquired
under Land Losers Scheme. Under the Implementation Instructions No. 29, dated 27.09.1991, the workman Manish
Kumar Tripathi, be a Matriculate and Diploma holder in Computer Education was entitled to be appointed for clerical
job but was appointed as Category-1 Mazdoor with assurance by management that after successful training, he will be
regularized in Clerical Grade-III but was never complied with by management though vide office order dated
23.06.2011 he was posted in the office for the job of Data Entry Operator (which is of clerical grade) at the Gobinda
Siding and has been doing this job of data entry operator till date. It is further alleged that he has yet not been
regularize or absorbed on the post of data entry operator under I.I. 29. Inspite of the fact that a decision was taken in
the coordination meeting held on 25 & 27.04.1978 at Nagpur between the union and management of WCL that in
case a workman is officiating on a higher category post and continues to work 190/240 days in service at that post he
shall be regularized at that post. The management of SECL has also regularized the services of daily workers who had
completed 190/240 days on higher posts. The management refused to regularize the workman on the post of data
entry operator inspite of requests, which is unjust and arbitrary on its part. A dispute was raised in this respect by
union and after failure of conciliation, this reference. The union has requested that the workman Manish Kumar
Tripathi be held entitled to be absorbed and regularized on the post of data entry operator since the date he is working
as data entry operator i.e. from 05.04.2012 and be held all back wages and benefits.
Management has taken a case in its written statement of defense that the workman was appointed as a
General Mazdoor, Category-I on 28.08.2007. He had submitted a declaration at the time of his appointment. He was
transferred from one unit to other unit as per administrative requirement on 05.04.2011 he was transferred from
Bhadura Sub Area to Kotma Gobinda Sub Area in his existing capacity as general mazdoor. He was also granted
promotion and services linked benefits for the post of general mazdoor from time to time. The post of data entry
operator is a selection post of different cadre qualified candidates are appointed on this post after following
recruitment process. There is no rule for change of cadre, hence the workman cannot be absorbed or regularized on
the post of data entry operator.
The workman union has filed a rejoinder in which they have been mainly reiterated their case.
In evidence, affidavit of the workman has been filed as his examination in chief he has been cross examined
by management. The workman union has also filed and proved documents which are photocopy of I.I. 29,
appointment order of the workman, office order dated 05.04.2011, photocopy of high school marksheet and computer
diploma certificate, also D-notes prepared by him on computer while working as data entry operator, which are Exb.
W/1 to W/7.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness Vikas Kumar Singh. He has been cross examined by workman
union. Management has also filed and proved photocopy appointment letter of the workman, undertaking signed by
him, copy of service book, order dated 05.04.2011, I.I. 22/NCWA-VI, which are Exb. M/1 to M/5.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Subodh Agrawal for union and Mr. Neeraj Kewat learned
Counsel for management. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the reference is issue for determination in the case in
hand.
It has been submitted from the side of workman that he was entitled to be appointed as a Clerk because he
had the required qualification and was a land oustee but management discriminated him and appointed him as General
Mazdoor under the assurance that appointment letter for the post of Clerk shall be issued to him within an year.
Workman side has further referred to Clause 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 of NCWA-IV as well I.I. No. 29 issued under this
NCWA with respect to land oustees in this respect though it has been submitted from the side of workman that there
is some settlement between the management of WCL and union in the coordination meeting held on 25.04.1978 and
27.04.1978 in which it has been agreed that a workman who is officiating on a higher category for 190/ 240 days. His
services will be regularized on that post but this understanding is for Western Coal Field and not for the management
in case in hand which is South Eastern Coal Field Limited. Hence, the argument from the side of management has
force that the workman in present case cannot get benefit of this agreement. Cadre scheme of both the cadres i.e. the
cadre of Mazdoor and General Clerical Cadre is on record, which goes to show that these are two different cadres,
hence a person from one cadre cannot be absorbed in other cadre. Consequently, the workman in the case in hand
cannot claim any right to be absorbed in clerical cadre on the ground that inspite of he being appointed in Genral
Mazdoor Cadre, job of clerk was taken from him by management. The union has failed to cite any rule which makes a
workman entitled to get salary of higher post when he is officiating at a higher post that too when there is no specific
order by competent authority in this respect.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman
and is answered accordingly.
5240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
No order as to cost.
DATE: 18/06/2025
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1336.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
– सि –
] िबलृुर
dsiapkV(एलसी/आर-23/2019
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -22012/146/2018-vkbZ-vkj-lh एम-II]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2025
S.O. 1336.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/23/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/2025
[No. L-22012/146/2018–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/23/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
Nathulal Pandey
General Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
South Jhagrakhand Colliery,
District Korea (C.G.) - 497449
Workman
Versus
The General Manager
S.E.C.L., Bhatgaon Area
PO: Bhatgaon, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)-497229
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 16th day of June-2025.)
As per letter dated 31/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-22012/146/2018/IR(CM-II) dt.
31/12/2018. The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the action on the part of the management i.e. General Manager SECL, Bhatgaon Area in
dismissing the services of Shri Devaram Rajwade, Shri Rajkumar Rajwade and Shri Rajdhani Rajwade,
all three sons of Karam Sai on fraudulent ground after allowing them to continue in service almost for a
period of 13, 15 and 11 years respectively and without conducting proper verification at the time of entry
into service in respect of them is appropriate and justified ? If not, whether their claim for reinstatement
in service with back wages in respect of the above named three workmen espoused the General Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) Korea is fair and legal ?”
Notices were sent to the parties after registering a case on the basis of reference. The workman union
appeared and filed its statement of claim. The management also filed their written statement of defense.
The case of the workman union, as taken by them in their statement of claim, is mainly that these
workmen, mentioned in the reference are sons of Karam Sai Rajwade with his three wives namely, Mahesiya, Raniya
Devi and Raniya Bai. Dayaram Rajwade is son from Mahesiya, Rajkumar Rajwade is son from Raniya Devi and
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5241
Rajdhani Rajwade is son from Raniya Bai. They were employed by the management in the year 2001 as dependants
of land oustees, their mothers whose lands were acquired by the management, and were working with the
management. Workman Devaram Rajwade got employment in the year of 2001, Rajkumar Rajwade got employment
in the year of 1999 and Rajdhani Rajwade got employment in the year of 2002. Also, it is alleged that the land in the
Bhatgaon Area were acquired in 1998 by SECL who had acquired 152.131 Hectare lands of Village Jarhi. The
Revenue Authorities, after examination of land records, recommended the name of persons for appointment as
dependants of land oustees and list was sent by the Collector of the District on 30.05.2001 for issuing appointment
letters accordingly.
According to the workman union, one Biju Dasan, the then President of Nagar Panchayat Jarhi lodged a
false complaint against these workmen alleging that they had got employment by fraudulent manner as dependants of
land oustees. They were issued a charge-sheet alleging misconduct under Clause 26.1, 26.9 & 26.22 as well 26.13 of
Certified Standing Orders and were placed under suspension by management vide order dated 20.02.2024. They filed
reply and stated the above mentioned facts in their reply denying the charges leveled against them. They specifically
stated that lands of their mothers was acquired and they got employment as dependants of land oustees on this basis.
Management summoned pedigree of Mahesiya D/o. Shobhit Rajwar, Uday Ram S/o. Bhukhan and Mohar Sai S/o.
Shankar from Tehsildar vide letter dated 18.02.2024. The Tehsildar sent a wrong pedigree based on the report of the
Patwari and Revenue Inspector. The charges were wrongly held proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of this
wrong pedigree. Management issued show cause notice dated 06.08.2014 on the basis of the inquiry report, the
workman submitted their reply dated 09.08.2014 on this show cause notice and the Disciplinary Authority passed
order dated 11.08.2014 for their dismissal from service, which is unjust and arbitrary.
It has been further alleged that they filed an application before the Additional District Collector challenging
the wrong pedigree dated 21.02.2014 prepared by the Village Patwari and Revenue Inspector and forwarded by
Tehsildar to the Inquiry Officer. That pedigree was quashed by the Additional Collector vide his order dated
27.11.2014. A revision against this order of Additional Collector was filed by management of SECL, which was
dismissed by him vide his order dated 26.02.2016 and the pedigree order passed by the Additional Collector was
confirmed. Furthermore, a case filed by Police with respect to same charges on a First Information Report registered
against these workmen was decided by Court of Judicial Magistrate in which these workmen were acquitted after
trial. Thereafter, as it is the case of workmen union, they filed a mercy appeal to the Director Personnel with the order
of Criminal Court, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed by him vide his order
dated 12.03.2015. The workmen challenged this order by Hon’ble High Court of M.P. W.P. No. 3848/2015,
3849/2015 & 3119/2015, which was heard and decided vide order dated 13.02.2017. Hon’ble High Court directed the
management to decide the representation of these workmen ignoring the wrong pedigree prepared by Patwari, set
aside by Revenue Authorities. They further file another representation dated 27.02.2017 with copy of Hon’ble Court
which was wrongly rejected by management vide its order dated 26.08.2017 without considering the pedigree
affirmed by Higher Revenue Authorities.
According to the workman union, this action of management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The union raised
a dispute which could not be conciliated, hence this reference.
The management has taken a case that the workmen were served a charge-sheet for getting employment to
fraudulent means an inquiry was conducted. A pedigree was obtained by from the office of Tehsildar, which did not
support the case of workmen. Also, it has been pleaded that since no Hindu can have more than one legal wife, hence
atleast two of the workmen are illegitimate sons of their father. According the management, the charges proved in the
inquiry and after finding the reply of show cause notice by the workmen on the inquiry report not sufficient, the order
with respect to dismissal was passed.
The workman union has filed rejoinder also in which they have reiterated their allegations, taken by them in
their statement of claim.
A preliminary issue was framed as follows on the basis of pleadings :-
Whether the departmental inquiry conducted is legal and proper ?
This issue was decided after hearing vide order dated 15.05.2024. The departmental inquiry was held vitiated
in law. Management was given opportunity to prove charges before this Tribunal. This order is part of this judgement
The management examined its witness Rahul Dahiya who has been cross examined by workman union.
The workman union has examined the three workmen Devaram, Rajkumar & Rajdhani Rajwade. They have
been cross examined by management.
Workman union has proved documents Exb. W/1 to W/57, which are mainly the documents relating to the
inquiry and punishment, also orders of Hon’ble High Court, Revenue Authorities and Judicial Magistrate, to be
referred to as and when required.
Management has filed and proved the documents Exb. M/1 to M/197, referred to as and when required.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel for the workman union Mr. R.C. Shrivastava and learned Senior
5242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair for management. Parties have filed written arguments also, which is part of record. I have
gone through the written argument and I have gone through the record as well.
As it appears in the inquiry papers and inquiry report, the basis of finding of inquiry report with respect to
proof of charges is report of the Tehsildar with respect to pedigree of the workmen prepared by the Village Patwari
and Revenue Inspector.
After the management was given opportunity to prove the charge, they have examined Rahul Dahiya in
support of the charge. He has stated that a complaint was received from the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat in 2014
that these workmen got appointment by fraudulent manner. Charge-sheet was issued and the matter was inquired into.
He has detailed about the documents produced during the inquiry in support of the charge and has further stated that
from the records available with management, it was evident that actual name of wife of Karam Sai (father of these
three workmen) is Raniya Bai. There is no record available that Karam Sai had three wives. These three workmen are
sons of Karam Sai is proved in the inquiry. This is also proved that they got employment as dependant of land oustee.
Workmen Devaram was appointed as land oustee against land owner Smt. Mahesiya D/o. Shobhit. Rajkumar got
employment as land oustee against Land owner Mohar Sai S/o. Shankar as maternal grandson of Mohar Sai and
Rajdhani got employment against land of Uday Ram S/o. Bhukhan as land oustee. He has also stated that the
workmen availed LTC in 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2009 in the name of Mahesiya as mother who had expired in 2002,
which is established of register of Nagar Panchayat.
He has been cross examined by workman union. He has stated that he has no knowledge that the pedigree
issued by Tehsildar has been set aside.
The three workmen have corroborated their case as detailed in their statement of claim. The workman
Rajdhani stated in his cross examination that he had got employment as land oustee against land of his mother Raniya
Bai. Uday Ram was father of Raniya Bai, the land acquired was firstly in the name of his Nana Udayram the father of
Raniya Bai mother. His mother Raniya Bai had got the land acquired in succession as heir of her father Udayram.
Workmen Rajkumar has stated in his cross examination that he had got employment as land oustee against
land of his mother Raniya Devi. Mohar Sai was father of Raniya Devi, the land acquired was firstly in the name of his
Nana Mohar Sai the father of Raniya Devi mother. His mother Raniya Devi had got the land acquired in succession as
heir of her father Mohar Sai.
Workmen Devaram has stated in his cross examination that he had got employment as land oustee against
land of his mother Mahesiya Devi. Shobhit was father of Mahesiya Devi, the land acquired was firstly in the name of
his Nana Shobhit the father of Mahesiya Devi mother. His mother Mahesiya Devi had got the land acquired in
succession as heir of her father Shobhit.
The pedigree approved by the Additional Commissioner which is final between the parties corroborates the
statement and case of these workmen. This is also established from evidence on record as well not disputed by
management that lands of these three women was acquired and the three workmen were given employment as land
oustees.
In this factual background the argument of management that atleast two marriages of the father of these three
workmen are void because more than one marriage is not permitted in Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Hence, two of the
workmen are illegitimate sons of their father. This argument is totally misplaced. The legitimacy of marriage of father
of workmen is not relevant to the case in hand. What is relevant to be seen is whether these workmen are dependant
sons of their mothers and whether the land in the name of their mothers was acquired or not ? These facts are
established from the final pedigree approved by Additional Commissioner and confirmed in revision as well from the
land records available on file. Hence, the charge that these workmen got employment fraudulently by claiming
themselves as land oustees is held not proved. Consequently, the action of management in dismissal of services of
these three workmen is also liable to be set aside. The workmen are held entitled to be reinstated from the date of the
dismissal with back wages and are also held entitled to all in service benefits till date within 30 days from the date of
publication of Award in Gazette, failing which interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of Award till payment. The
workman union is also held entitled to litigation cost computed at Rs. 50,000/- from management.
Accordingly, the reference is answered as follows :-
AWARD
Holding the action of management in dismissal of services of these three workmen unjustified in law,
the workmen Devaram Rajwade, Rajdhani Rajwade and Rajkumar Rajwade are held entitled to be reinstated
from the date of the dismissal with back wages and are also held entitled to all in service benefits till date
within 30 days from the date of publication of Award in Gazette, failing which interest @ of 6% per annum
from the date of Award till payment. The workman union is also held entitled to litigation cost computed at Rs.
[भाग II— ण् ड3(ii)]
भारत का रािृत्र : िुलाई 19, 2025/आषाढ़ 28, 1947
5243
50,000/- from management.
DATE: 16/06/2025
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 16 िुलाई, 2025
का.आ. 1337.––vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
– सि –
] िबलृुर
dsiapkV(एलसी/आर-91/2011
) dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y -22012/125/2011-vkbZ-vkj-lh एम-II]
मजणकंिन एन, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th July, 2025
S.O. 1337.––In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/91/2011) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/2025.
[[No. L-22012/125/2011–IR (CM-II)]
MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/91/2011
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Kishan S/o Bhaiyalal Kol,
Ex-Explosive Carrier, Bilious No.-1 Estate,
Benind Hospital, Ward No-3, PO-Dhanpuri,
Distt. Shahdol (M.P.),
Died during the proceedings and
Represented by his legal representatives.
1/1. Smt. Janki W/o Late Shri Kishan Lal,
1/2. Ku. Kajal, D/o Late Shri Kishan Lal,
1/3. Ku. Sajal, D/o Late Shri Kishan Lal,
1/4. Ku. Sunayna, D/o Late Shri Kishan Lal.
Workman
Vs
1. The CGM,
Sohagpur Area of SECL,
PO : Dhapuri,
Madhya Pradesh.
2. The Sub-Area Manager,
Amlai-Bangwar-Damini SA of SECL,
PO:- Bemhouri, Distt. – Shahdol,
Madhya Pradesh.
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 16th day of June- 2025)
5244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 19, 2025/ASHADHA 28, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
As per letter dated 14/09/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’)as per Notification
No. L-22012/125/2011 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 14/09/2011. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of the Sub-Area Manager, Amlai-Bangwar-Damini Sub-Area of
SECL in terminating the services of Shri Kishan S/o Bhaiyalal Kol. Ex. Explosive Carrier, is legal and
justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”
The case of the Workman side is mainly that, the workman Kishan Lal was first appointed in 1991, and
worked till 1998. Thereafter, he became sick and could not attend his job on his workplace. He was issued a charge-
sheet and after a Departmental Enquiry, his services were terminated by the Management vide order dated 13.01.2002
for the charge of misconduct by way of habitually and unauthorisedly absenting himself from work-place.
He died during the proceedings. His legal representatives were substituted. They filed the statement of
claim and took a case that, the Enquiry was not just and proper and charges were not proved and punishment was not
proportionate to the charges.
The case of Management is mainly that, the Workman was a habitual absentee. He used to remain absent
from his workplace unauthorizedly without any intimation, permission or getting any leave sanctioned. His attendance
was only 145 days in 1998, 95 days in 1999, 69 days in 2000 and 51 days in 2001. He was issued a charge-sheet
alleging misconduct by way of unauthorizdely absenting himself from duty. A Departmental Enquiry was conducted
in which the Workman participated. The Workman also produced his evidence. Enquiry Officer submitted his report
holding the charges proved. The Workman was issued a show- cause notice on the basis of Enquiry Report and after
examination of his reply on show cause, his services were terminated by the Management.
According to Management, the Departmental Enquiry was legal and proper, charges were proved and
punishment is also not disproportionate to the charges.
In evidence, the legal representative of the Workman who happens to be his Widow filed her affidavit as her
examination-in-chief but never appeared for cross-examination. Management filed affidavit of its witness, who
proved the enquiry papers. None appeared for Workman side to cross-examine the witness.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Management Mr. Neeraj Kewat. None appeared for
Workman. No written arguments has been field by any of the parties. I have gone through the record as well.
As regards the legality of the Departmental Enquiry, the burden to prove this fact is on the Workman
side. Their uncross-examined affidavit as the witness did not turn up for cross-examination cannot be read in
evidence. Moreover, the Widow of the Workman is not a party to the Enquiry. From Enquiry Report there appears no
illegality or material irregularities with respect to substance or procedure in conducting the Departmental Enquiry.
Hence, the Departmental Enquiry is held just legal and proper. From evidence on record, the charges are held rightly
proved in the enquiry.
As regard to punishment, habitual unauthorized absence is major misconduct in the standing orders which
attracts major punishment. Keeping in view the continuous absence in every year, the punishment of dismissal is held
proportionate to the charge proved.
On the basis of above discussion the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of Management of SECL in terminating the services of the Workman just, legal and
proper, his legal representatives are held not entitled to any relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 16/06/2025
P. K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. GORAKHA NATH YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA
Date: 2025.08.02 11:38:56 +05'30'