4874 GI/2025

(5371)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 29]

नइ ददल् ली, जुलाइ 27—ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025, िजनवार/श्रावण 5—श्रावण 11, 1947

No. 29]

NEW DELHI, JULY 27—AUGUST 2, 2025, SATURDAY/SHRAVANA 5– SHRAVANA 11, 1947

आस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती िज जजससे दक यि ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 24 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1399.—बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण ऄजधजनयम, 1999 (1999 का 41) की धारा 4 द्वारा

प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री ऄजय से (जन्म जतजथ -30.6.1965), भा.प्र.से.

(कनााटक:1987) (सेवाजनवृत्त), भूतृूवा जवत्त सजचव और सजचव, अर्थथक काया जवभाग, को ृद का कायाभार ग्रिण करने की

तारीख से अरंभ में तीन वर्ा की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ृैंस वर्ा की अयु प्राप्त करने तक ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी

ृिले िो, ृांच लाख बास िजार ृांच सौ रुृए प्रजत माि (अवास और कार की सुजवधा के जबना) के समेदकत वेतन ृजकेज

ृर भारतीय बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण (आरडाइ) के ऄध्यक्ष के ृद ृर जनयुि करती िज।

[फा. सं. अर-12011/04/2024-बीमा-I]

धीरज भास्ट्कर, ईृ सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-13082025-265371

CG-DL-W-13082025-265371

5372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1399.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ajay Seth (DoB: 30.06.1965), IAS

(KN:1987) (Retd.), former Finance Secretary and Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, to the post of

Chairperson, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India, on a consolidated pay package of five lakh

sixty-two thousand five hundred rupees per month (without facility of house and car), initially for a period of three

years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of post, or till attaining the age of sixty-five years, or until

further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. R- 12011/04/2024-Ins.I]

DHEERAJ BHASKAR, Dy. Secy.

मत्सस्ट्यृालन, ृिुृालन और डेयरी मंत्रालय

(मत्सस्ट्यृालन जवभाग)

(राजभार्ा ऄनुभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 15 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1400.—केंरीय सरकार, राजभार्ा( संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 (यथा

संिोजधत 1987, 2007 और 2011) के जनयम 10 के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में, मत्सस्ट्यृालन जवभाग, मत्सस्ट्यृालन,

ृिुृालन और डेयरी मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायाालय में हिदी का कायासाधाक ज्ञान रखने वाले

कमाचाररयों की सं्‍या 80% से ऄजधक िो जाने के फलस्ट्वप ृ जनम्न कायाालय को एतद्वारा भारत के राजृत्र में ऄजधसूजचत

दकया जाता िज।

केंरीय माजत्सस्ट्यकी तटवती आंजीजनयरी संस्ट्थान

मत्सस्ट्यृालन जवभाग

मत्सस्ट्यृालन, ृिुृालन और डेयरी मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार

आसरो अवास के सामने, जालिल्ली

बेंगलुरु - 560 013 (कनााटक)

[फा. सं. E -11016/1/2023-DOF (E-File: 23162]

ऄजय श्रीवास्ट्तव, अर्थथक सलािकार

MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING

(Department of Fisheries)

(OFFICIAL LANGUAGE SECTION)

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2025

S.O. 1400.—The Central Government, in pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages

(Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987, 2007 and 2011), the following office

under the administrative control of the Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and

Dairying wherein more than 80% of their employees having a working knowledge of Hindi, is hereby notified in the

Gazette of India.

CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF COASTAL ENGINEERING FOR FISHERY

Department of Fisheries

Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India

Opp. To ISRO Quarters, Jalahalli

Bengaluru – 560 013 (Karnataka)

[F. No. E-11016/1/2023-DOF (E-File.: 23162]

AJAY SRIVASTAVA, Economic Advisor

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5373

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 23 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1401.—केन्रीय सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान)

ऄजधजनयम,1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1) के ऄधीन जारी की गइ भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और

प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गइ ऄनुसूची में यथा ईजल्लजखत तारीखों की एवम का. अ. द्वारा ईन ऄजधसूचनाओं से

संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान दकया था|

और केन्रीय सरकार ने, ईि ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

ईि भूजमयों में, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि, ईृयोग का ऄजधकार अइ एच बी जलजमटेड में जनजित दकया था|

और सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने केन्रीय सरकार को ररृोटा दी िज दक ृेरोजलयम ईत्सृाद के ृररविन के जलए मध्य-प्रदेि

राज्य में अइ एच बी जलजमटेड की कांडला गोरखृुर एल.ृी.जी. ृाआृलाआन जबछाइ जा चुकी िैं, ऄतः ईस भूजम के बारे में,

जजसका संजक्षप्त जववरण आस ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न ऄनुसूची से जवजनर्ददष्ट दकया गया िैं, ऐसे प्रचालन को मध्य-प्रदेि राज्य में

समाप्त दकया जाए|

ऄतः ऄब, केन्रीय सरकार, ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान) 1963 के

जनयम 4 के स्ट्ृष्टीकरण – 1 के ऄधीन ईस तारीख को जजस ृर यि ऄजधसूचना भारत के राजृत्र में प्रकाजित िोती िैं,

मध्य-प्रदेि राज्य के आन्दौर जजले के नीचे वर्थणत गााँवो में मागााजधकार गजतजवजधयों की समाप्ती की तारीख के प ृ में घोजर्त

करती िैं |

ऄनुसूची

जजला: आन्दौर राज्य : मध्य प्रदेि

क्रमांक

का. अ. सं. एवं ददनांक

ग्राम का नाम

तिसील

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

का.अ.4494(ऄ) ददनांक. 21.09.2023

मणडलावदा

सांवेर

[फा. सं. अर-11025(15)/5/2020-ओअर-I-भाग(2)/इ-45913]

िजि िेखर हसि, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 23rd July, 2025

S.O. 1401.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas. S. O. Numbers and Dates as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under Sub-section (i) of section 6

of Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central

Government acquired the Right of User in the lands specified in the schedule appended to those notifications.

AND WHEREAS, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub-Section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act,

the Central Government vested the Right of user in the lands free from all encumbrances in the IHB Limited.

AND WHEREAS, the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline

has been laid for the purpose of transportation of LPG in the said lands and hence such operation may be terminated

for Kandla Gorakhpur LPG Pipeline Project in the state of Madhya Pradesh in respect of the said lands which in brief

are specified in the Schedule annexed to the Notification;

―Now, therefore, as required under explanation – 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules 1963, the Central Government hereby declare the date on which this

notification is Right Published in the Gazette of India as the date of ―Termination of Operation‖ in ROU Village

mentioned in Indore district in the state of Madhya Pradesh.

5374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

District: INDORE State: Madhya Pradesh

S.No.

S.O. No. & Date

Name of Village

Name of Tehsil

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

S.O. No. 4494 (E) Dated.21.09.2023

Mandlawada

Sanwer

[F. No. R-11025(15)/5/2020-OR-I-Part(2)/E-45913]

SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 24 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1402.—केन्रीय सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान)

ऄजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जजसे आसमें आसके ृश्चात ईि ऄजधजनयम किा गया िज) की धारा 3 की ईृधारा (1) के

ऄधीन जारी की गइ भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना सं्‍या का. अ. 773 तारीख

13 मइ, 2025, जो भारत के राजृत्र तारीख 26 मइ, 2025, में प्रकाजित की गइ थी, द्वारा ईस ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न

ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में ृेरोजलयम ृदाथा ृररविन के जलए ृंजाब राज्य में बर ण्डा से संगप र तक (बर ण्डा-संगप र

ृाआृलाआन) ृेरोजलयम ृदाथा ृररविन के जलए जिन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम काृोरेिन जलजमटेड, द्वारा ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के

प्रयोजन के जलए ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान के ऄृने अिय की घोर्णा की थी

और ईि राजृत्र ऄजधसूचना की प्रजतयां जनता को तारीख 10 जून 2025 तक ईृलब्ध करा दी गइ थी

और सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने ईि ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1) के ऄधीन केन्रीय सरकार को ररृोटा दे दी

िज

और केन्रीय सरकार ने ईि ररृोटा ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात् , और यि समाधान िो जाने ृर दक ईि भूजम

ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए ऄृेजक्षत िज ईसमें ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजान करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िज

ऄतः ऄब केन्रीय सरकार ईि ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए

यि घोर्णा करती िज दक आस ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए ईृयोग के

ऄजधकार का ऄजान दकया जाए

और केन्रीय सरकार ईि ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यि

जनदेि देती िज दक ईि भूजम में ईृयोग का ऄजधकार आस घोर्णा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्रीय सरकार में जनजित िोने

के बजाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर जिन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम काृोरेिन जलजमटेड, में जनजित िोगा।

ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन ऄजधजनयम, 1962 की धारा 10 के ऄघ्याधीन दकसी भी क्षजतृूर्थत के जलए

जिन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम काृोरेिन जलजमटेड, ृूणातया ईत्तरदायी िोगी और ृाआृलाआन से सम्बजन्धत दकसी भी मामले ृर

केन्रीय सरकार के जवप द्ध कोइ वाद दावा या कानूनी कायावािी नि िो सकेगी।

ऄनुसूची

क्रमसं.

गाव का नाम

खसरा नं.

ऺेत्रफऱ

हेक्टेयर

राज् य: ृंजाब

फूसमण्डी

230/1

(H.B.NO. 60)

230/2

231/1

231/2

ख.नं 233 और 231 के बीच मेंआरसीसी रास्ता (232)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5375

233

गुलाबगढ़

23//25

उफफ नाइवाऱा

24//21

(H.B.NO. 58)

24//22

24//23

24//24/1

24//24/2

24//25

37//4/2/1

37//4/2/2

37//5/1

37//5/2

37//6/1

36//10

36//9

36//8

36//7

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

36//6

35//10

35//9/2

35//9/1/1

35//9/1/2

गुऱाबगढ़

35//12/2/1

उफफ नाइवाऱा

35//12/2/2

(H.B.NO. 58)

35//12/2/3

35//8/1

35//8/2

35//13/1

35//13/2

35//14

35//15/1

35//15/2

34//11/1

34//11/2

34//12/1

34//12/2

34//13/1

34//13/2/1

34//13/2/2

34//7

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

34//18/1

34//18/2

34//17/2/1

34//17/2/2

5376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ख. नं. 34//17/2 और 34//17/1 के बीच में (सरकारी अस्फालटेड रास्ता)

34//17/1/1

34//17/1/2

34//14

34//15/1

34//15/2

34//6/1

34//6/2

33//11

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

33//12

33//13/1

33//13/2

33//13/3

33//14

33//15/1

33//15/2

32//11

32//12

32//18

32//17/2

32//17/1/1

32//17/1/2

ख.नं. 32//17/2 और 32//17/1 के बीच में (सरकारी अस्फालटेड रास्ता) 101

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

32//16

31//20

31//19

जिऱा: बठिण्डा

तुंगवाऱी

274//15

(H.B.NO.208)

274//16

460/6 (फील्ड चैनल)

273//20/2/1

273//20/2/2

273//20/1

273//19

273//22

273//23/1

273//23/2

276//4

276//5

460//5

277//10

277//9

277//12

277//13

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5377

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

277//14

277//16

277//17

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

278//20

278//21

278//22

278//23

307//3

307//4/1

307//4/2

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

307//7

307//6/1

307//6/2

306//10

306//11

306//12

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

306//13

306//18

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

306//17

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

306//25/1

306//25/2

(H.B.NO.208)

305//21

305//22

[फा. सं. अर-12042(11)/23/2021-ओअर-II/इ-40547]

'kf'k '®£j flag, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1402.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S. O. No. 773 Dated 13^th May 2025, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act),

published in the Gazette of India dated the 26^th May 2025, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire

the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline

in the State of Punjab for transportation of petroleum product from Bathinda to Sangrur (Bhatinda – Sangrur

Pipeline), a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public up to 10^th June 2025.

And whereas the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted

report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

5378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

free from all encumbrances.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of

Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government

on any matter relating to the pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

TEHSIL: BATHINDA DISTRICT: BATHINDA STATE: PUNJAB

PHOOS MANDI 230/1

(H.B.NO. 60)

230/2

231/1

231/2

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

233

GULABGARH

23//25

URF NAIWALA

24//21

(H.B.NO. 58)

24//22

24//23

24//24/1

24//24/2

24//25

GULABGARH

37//4/2/1

URF NAIWALA

37//4/2/2

(H.B.NO. 58)

37//5/1

(Contd...)

37//5/2

37//6/1

36//10

36//9

36//8

36//7

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

36//6

35//10

35//9/2

35//9/1/1

35//9/1/2

35//12/2/1

35//12/2/2

35//12/2/3

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5379

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

35//8/1

35//8/2

35//13/1

35//13/2

35//14

35//15/1

35//15/2

34//11/1

34//11/2

34//12/1

34//12/2

34//13/1

34//13/2/1

34//13/2/2

34//7

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

34//18/1

34//18/2

34//17/2/1

34//17/2/2

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

34//17/1/1

34//17/1/2

34//14

34//15/1

34//15/2

34//6/1

34//6/2

33//11

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

33//12

GULABGARH

33//13/1

URF NAIWALA

33//13/2

(H.B.NO. 58)

33//13/3

(Contd...)

33//14

33//15/1

33//15/2

5380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

32//11

32//12

32//18

32//17/2

32//17/1/1

32//17/1/2

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

(101)

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

32//16

31//20

31//19

TEHSIL: NATHANA DISTRICT: BATHINDA STATE: PUNJAB

TUNGWALI

274//15

(H.B. NO. 208)

274//16

460/6 (Field Channel)

273//20/2/1

273//20/2/2

273//20/1

273//19

273//22

273//23/1

273//23/2

276//4

276//5

460//5

277//10

277//9

277//12

277//13

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

277//14

277//16

277//17

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

278//20

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5381

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq. Mt.

278//21

278//22

278//23

307//3

307//4/1

307//4/2

TUNGWALI

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

(H.B. NO. 208)

307//7

(Contd.....)

307//6/1

307//6/2

306//10

306//11

306//12

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

306//13

306//18

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

306//17

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

306//25/1

306//25/2

305//21

305//22

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

SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, Under Secy.

वाजणज्य और ईद्योग मंत्रालय

(ईद्योग संवधान और अंतररक व्याृार जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 4 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1403.—केन्र सरकार, राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के जनयम 10

के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में ईद्योग संवधान और अंतररक व्याृार जवभाग के जनयंत्रणाधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायाालयों,

जजनके 80% से ऄजधक कार्थमकों ने हिदी का कायासाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, को ऄजधसूजचत करती िज:

1. प्रजतजलप्यजधकार कायाालय,

बौजद्धक संृदा भवन, प्लॉट सं.-32, सेक्टर -14, द्वारका, नइ ददल्ली-110078

5382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. व्याृार जचह्न रजजस्ट्री,

जनजाम ृजलेस, जद्वतीय बहुतल कायाालय भवन, 7वां तल, 234/4, अचाया जगदीि चंर बोस रोड,

कोलकाता - 700020

[फा. सं. इ- 11017/3/2022-हिदी]

एन. के. वाधवा, संयुि सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade)

New Delhi, the 4th July, 2025

S.O. 1403.—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.

सड़क ृररविन और राजमागा मंत्रालय

(राजभार्ा ऄनुभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 28 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1404.—केंरीय सरकार राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के जनयम

10 के ईृजनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में क्षेत्रीय कायाालय, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमागा प्राजधकरण, ृटना, जजसके 80% से ऄजधक

कमाचाररयों ने हिदी में कायासाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िज, को ऄजधसूजचत करती िज।

[फा. सं. इ.-12012/1/2023-जवजवध/हिदी]

जवनय कुमार, ऄृर सजचव

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Official Language Section)

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2025

S.O. 1404.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

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

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

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

VINAY KUMAR, Addl. Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 17 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1405.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5383

esa

–

सि

–

]असनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभा सं्‍या 05/2016)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 22012/116/2015-vkbZ-vkj

(सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2025

S.O. 1405.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No. 05/2016) of the Central Government Industrial

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

of E.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16/07/2025.

[No. L-22012/116/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ASANSOL.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer,

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

REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2016

PARTIES:

Prabir Kumar Mondal

Vs.

Management of Madhabpur Colliery, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Prabir Mondal (in person).

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.06.2025

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/116/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 02.02.2016 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

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

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal. Thereafter, a Corrigendum of Schedule was received bearing No. L-

22012/116/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 19/22.08.2016 recasting the address of the management.

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action taken by the management is premature for retirement of Sri Prabir Mondal, Sr. R.T.O.

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

On receiving Order No. L-22012/116/2015-IR(CM-II) dated 02.02.2016 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 10.02.2016 and an

order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.

The workman filed his written statement on 01.11.2016. Management contested the Industrial Dispute by

filing their written statement on 15.05.2017. Brief fact of the case as per written statement of the workman is that the

workman was a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) and a letter of

appointment dated 26.08.1977 was issued for his posting at Madhabpur Colliery under Kajora Area of ECL. He was

5384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

subsequently promoted to the post of Sr. R.T.O. and management allotted CMPF No. 02/123/B/0366, U.M. No.

628239 to him. The management recorded his date of birth in the B-Form Register of the colliery as 1955 and

intentionally did not record the date and month of his birth. The actual date of birth of the workman as per his

educational qualification is 08.11.1955, which is recorded in his Matriculation Certificate, on the basis of which

promotion was given to him as Sr. R.T.O. The workman submitted an application on 24.12.2011 before the Agent of

Madhabpur Colliery for correction of his date of birth. The application was forwarded to Senior Manager (Personnel),

Kajora Area, who asked for production of relevant document for correction of his date of birth. The workman

produced his Higher Secondary Admit Card for rectification of his date of birth. The Admit Card bearing no.

DAC/78/NO:1684 dated 17.12.2012, is a duplicate copy of the Admit Card for Higher Secondary examination held

on 16.05.1978.

It is the further case of the workman that he was unsuccessful in his examination in the year 1976 and he re-

appeared in the examination in the year 1978. The Sr. Manager (Personnel), Kajora Area in his letter to the Welfare

Officer asked him to verify the Admit Card issued by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for rectification of

the date of birth of the workman. The Age Determination Committee of Kajora Area of ECL examined the details of

the workman and recommended for rectification of his date of birth as 08.11.1955 instead of year of birth as ―1955‖.

It is claimed by the workman that as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 (hereinafter referred to as I.I. No. 76) the

date of birth of a workman recorded in the Matriculation Certificate of the Board of Secondary Education is required

to be treated as the date of birth of the workman. The aggrieved workman contended that the management

intentionally did not rectify his date of birth and he has been superannuation from service on 30.06.2015 instead of

30.11.2015 and he suffered loss of wages for five months. The workman claimed for full wages, Quarterly bonus, Ex-

gratia, Leave wages, House Rent Allowance, Coal Mine Provident Fund benefits for the period from 01.07.2015 to

31.11.2015.

Management refuted the claim of the workman and stated in their written statement that Prabir Kumar

Mondal was appointed on 05.09.1977 and in the B-Form Register of Madhabpur Colliery his age / year of birth has

been recorded as 1955 against Serial No. 2851 and he authenticated the entry by putting his signature. Prabir Kumar

Mondal was transferred to Madhusudanpur Colliery and again transferred back to Madhabpur Colliery. As per entry

in Last Pay Certificate of Madhusudanpur Colliery his year of birth has been recorded as 1955. Service Record

Excerpt was issued to Prabir Kumar Mondal where his date of birth was recorded as 1955. From all the

contemporaneous records it appears that the date of birth of Prabir Kumar Mondal was recorded as 1955 which was

well within his knowledge. The management of ECL has contended that as per Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal

Industry, the Service Record Excerpts were issued to all the workman including Prabir Kumar Mondal for the purpose

of settling their objection thereto within a stipulated period. Prabir Kumar Mondal neither raised any objection

regarding his year of birth nor requested the employer company to incorporate the date and month of birth in the

Service Record. The management contended that Prabir Kumar Mondal deliberately suppressed the fact. Referring to

paragraph no. 4 of I.I. No. 76 it is clearly mentioned that wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not

be reopened unless there is very glaring and apparently wrong entry brought to the notice of the management. It is

urged that as per the said instruction which is binding on all workman and management there cannot be further

alteration of date of birth. The workman has also been issued with Identity Card in which his year of birth has been

recorded as 1955. The management asserted that in absence of specific date of birth, whenever year of birth of the

employee is mentioned, the practice of the establishment is to take 1^st July of the year as date of birth of the workman

and in the present case the same principle was applied according to the Model Standing Orders. In the explanatory

note to the Clause No. (1) (IV) of the Schedule (I-B) of the Model Standing Orders it is prescribed that where exact

date of birth is not available and year of birth is only available, then the 1^st July of the said year shall be taken as the

date of birth.

Management relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of

Maharashtra and Another Vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and Others [Civil Appeal No. 9704 of 2010]

wherein it was held that : ― correction at the fag end would be at the cost of large number of employees, therefore,

any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the Court.‖ It was further held that : ― no application for

alteration of date of birth after five years should have been entertained.‖ It is the case of the management that the

workman was appointed in the year 1977 and the dispute relating to date of birth has been raised in the year 2015 i.e.,

after 38 years. Therefore, the dispute raised after such length of period cannot be considered. Referring to the

averment made in Paragraph No. 8 of the written statement of the workman to the effect that the Age Determination

Committee of Kajora Area recommended rectification of his date of birth as per I.I. No. 76, it is contended that such

statement is incorrect and the proceeding of the committee would reveal that no such recommendation was made for

correction of date of birth of Prabir Kumar Mondal. On the other hand, the committee observed that Matriculation

Certificate was issued after appointment of the workman. It is urged that the workman has been rightly superannuated

from his service w.e.f. 01.07.2015 and the workman is not entitled to any relief for correction of his date of birth or

payment on account of alleged loss of wages by 5 months or other consequential reliefs.

The workman has filed his affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated his case in the written statement and

claimed that his correct date of birth is 08.11.1955. The workman during his cross-examination has produced the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5385

following documents :

(i)

Copy of the Admit Card issued by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for Higher

Secondary Examination of the year 1976 has been produced as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Copy of the Admit Card issued by West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for Higher

Secondary supplementary examination of the year 1978, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

Copy of the Mark Sheet of Supplementary Higher Secondary Examination, as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Copy of the Letter dated 01.11.2013 of the Sr. Manager (Personnel), Kajora Area issued to the

Welfare Officer (T), Madhabpur Colliery for verification of the Admit Card from West Bengal

Board of Secondary Education, as Exhibit W-4.

(v)

Copy of Letter dated 22.07.2014 issued by Dy. Secretary (Records Verification), West Bengal

Board of Secondary Education to the Manager, Madhabpur Colliery verifying the date of birth of

Prabir Kumar Mondal, as Exhibit W-5.

(vi)

Copy of the Appointment Letter of Prabir Kumar Mondal date 26.08.1977, as Exhibit W-6.

(vii)

Copy of the Identity Card of Prabir Kumar Mondal issued by the management, as Exhibit W-7.

(viii)

Copy of the Application of Prabir Kumar Mondal for correction of date of birth, as Exhibit W-8.

It transpires from his cross-examination that on his transfer from Madhusudanpur to Madhabpur his year of birth was

recorded as 1955 in his Last Pay Certificate. In the year 1987 he was posted at Madhusudanpur Colliery and his

year of birth was recorded as 1955 in the Service Record and Service Record Excerpt was supplied to him. The

witness admitted that he did not raise any objection regarding year of birth. It is also true that in the Provident Fund

and Gratuity Forms his date of birth was recorded as 1955 instead of his complete date of birth. The cross-

examination further reveals that he received Admit Card of Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1976 prior to

his joining service in the year 1977. The workman denied that the Admit Card of Higher Secondary Examination was

issued to him in the year 1978. The workman has been superannuated from service w.e.f. 01.07.2015. The witness

claimed that he produced his Admit Card for Higher Secondary Examination at the time of his appointment but did

not raise the dispute regarding his date of birth recorded in the Service Record at that time. The workman denied the

suggestion that he has been superannuated from his service in legal and proper manner, according to his actual date of

birth.

Mr. Ramjee Tripathi has been examined as Management Witness No. 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief. In his

evidence-in-chief the witness stated that the year of birth of Prabir Kumar Mondal was recorded as 1955 in the

Service Record of the company. Copy of Form ‗B‘ Register of Prabir Kumar Mondal has been exhibited in evidence

as Exhibit M-1. Copy of Service Record Excerpt, as Exhibit M-2. Copy of Identity Card of the workman where his

date of birth is recorded as 1955, as Exhibit M-3. Copy of Notice of Superannuation where his last date of work was

recorded as 30.06.2015, is produced as Exhibit M-4.

In course of cross-examination the witness stated that in all three documents the year of birth of Prabir

Kumar Mondal has been recorded as 1955 on the basis of information furnished by him and the same was signed by

him. The witness denied that at the time of joining employment under the company on 05.09.1977 Prabir Kumar

Mondal had passed Higher Secondary Examination orhe produced copy of Admit Card bearing his date of birth as

08.11.1955. The witness admitted that on 24.12.2011 Prabir Kumar Mondal submitted an application for correction of

his date of birth and the application is marked as Exhibit W-8. The proposal for correction of his date of birth was

sent to Headquarters for taking action but ECL Headquarters regretted the claim and issued a letter dated 13.03.2015.

Copy of the Letter dated 13.03.2015 has been exhibited as Exhibit M-5.

Prabir Kumar Mondal, argued his case seeking correction of his date of birth in the Service Record and

submitted that the management of ECL was fully aware about his educational qualification and did not rectify his date

of birth as 08.11.1955, in place of the year of birth recorded as 1955 in the important Service Record Excerpt, Form

‗B‘ Register as well as Identity Card. Prabir Kumar Mondal admitted that he did not raise any objection against the

incomplete date of birth recorded in the Service Record Excerpt after a copy of the same was served in the year 1987.

He submitted that on 28.12.2011, 4 years prior to his superannuation he applied before the Agent of Madhabpur

Colliery for correction of his date of birth (Exhibit W-8). The workman also produced copy of his Admit Card issued

by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for his Higher Secondary Examination of the year 1978. The

Admit Card appears to have been issued on 17.12.2012, which is marked as Exhibit W-2. Both the admit cards

appeared to be duplicate and bear date of birth of Prabir Kumar Mondal as 8^th November 1955. The workman argued

that the management did not consider his representation and did not correct his date of birth in the Service Record due

to which he suffered premature superannuation five months earlier than his actual date of superannuation on

30.11.2015. The workman claimed payment of wages for five months along with Quarterly bonus, Coal Mine

Provident Fund benefits and other consequential reliefs.

5386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for management of ECL, refuting the claim of the workman argued that at

the time of appointment the workman did not furnish his actual date of birth and his year of birth was recorded as

1955 in all relevant documents in Form ‗B‘ Register, Identity Card and Service Record of the company. At the time of

his application the workman did not pass his Higher Secondary Examination. In the pleading as well as evidence the

workman has admitted that he passed the Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1978 and for the purpose of

correcting date of birth he produced duplicate admit cards of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education which are

dated 13.02.2013 (Exhibit W-1) and 17.12.2012 (Exhibit W-2). Both these documents were collected long after the

entries were made in the Service Records. Learned advocate argued that no objection was raised by the workman after

Service Record Excerpt was supplied to him in the year 1987. It is contended that at the fag end of his service, at the

time of superannuation he submitted an application for rectification of his date of birth but the management after

considering the facts rejected his application vide letter No. KA/APM(IC)/C-6/DOB/27/2389 dated 13.03.2015

(Exhibit M-5). Learned advocate urged that the workman is not entitled to any relief and his prayer for payment of

wages for five months on account of loss of wages due to premature superannuation and other consequential reliefs is

liable to be dismissed.

11.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the aggrieved workman and learned advocate for the

management in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced. Undisputedly, the date of birth

of the workman was recorded in the Service record, Form ‗B‘ Register and Identity Card as 1955 instead of his

complete date of birth. The workman received Service Record Excerpt in the year 1987 but did not raise any objection

against the date of birth appearing as 1955. After passage of 34 years from his appointment in the year 1977 he

submitted an application before the management of the company on 24.12.2011 for correction of his date of birth,

stating therein that his date of birth is 18.11.1955 but it has been wrongly recorded as 01.07.1955. On a perusal of

Exhibit W-1 and W-2, which are duplicate copies of Admit Cards of Prabir Kumar Mondal issued by West Bengal

Board of Secondary Education, it appears that his date of birth was recorded as 08.11.1955. The management of ECL

had considered the proposal of correction of date of birth in respect of Prabir Kumar Mondal and communicated to

him that Competent Authority is not agreed for correction of date of birth. Copy of the letter is produced as Exhibit

M-5. From the evidence on record, it appears that the workman has already superannuated from service w.e.f.

01.07.2015 and he raised this Industrial Dispute after his superannuation in the year 2016. It is well settled law that

the date of birth should be rectified at the earliest point of time and the workman should not be permitted to seek relief

of his age at the fag end of his service. In the case Guddappa Ningappa Kolaji Vs. The Management of Grasim

Industries [W.P. No. 146666 of 2020], the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka in the writ petition relying upon a

decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others Vs. Shyam

Kishore Singh [AIR (2020) SC 940], held that the employee cannot be permitted to seek change of date of birth,

appearing in the Service Register after his retirement. In the instant case the workman has raised the dispute after his

superannuation, seeking rectification of his date of birth which is not justified and is not permissible. The workman

had full knowledge that his year of birth was recorded in the Service Record, Form ‗B‘ Register and Identity Card of

the company which he was carrying with him. In 34 years of his service, he made no attempt seeking rectification of

his date of birth. The workman therefore is disentitled to any relief for rectification of his date of birth in the service

record after superannuation. In view of my above discussion, I hold that there is no merit in the claim of the workman

at this belated stage and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings.

Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for

information and Notification

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 24 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1406.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार ब्यूरो ऑफ़ जसजवल एजवएिन जसक्योररटी; आटीए आंजीजनयररग प्राआवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों

और श्री राजवीर के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नइ ददल्ली, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-108/2014) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 24.07.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-99]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1406.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 108/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5387

Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Bureau of Civil Aviation Security; ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Rajveer which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 24.07.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-99]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 108/2014

Sh. Rajveer vs. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and Anr.

Sh. Rajveer, S/o Sh. Ram Charan

R/o C/o Sh. Shashi Kumar,

Gali No.3, Block-D,

Near Purana Shiv Mandir,

Rangpuri Extn., Mahipalpur,

New Delhi.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

1. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security

Through Manager, Plaintiff-3, IGI Airport Airport-37

2. ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

ETA House B-13, Sector-63, Noida, U.P.-201307.

…Managements/respondents

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh. Narendra Kumar, Ld. AR.

For Managements/Respondents:

None for management-1 (Bureau of Civil Aviation).

Sh. Abhay Singh, Ld. AR for management-2 (ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd).

Award

30.06.2025

The present application has been filed under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as ‗the Act‘). The claimant claims to be a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen of India. He was appointed

as an HVAC Assistant with the management w.e.f. 10.01.2011 on a monthly salary of Rs. 6,084/- (Rupees Six

Thousand and Eighty-Four only).

Upon successful completion of the six-month probation period, the management confirmed the service of the

workman/claimant w.e.f. 01.06.2011 vide office letter dated 11.11.2011, appreciating his hard and devoted service. His

salary was increased to Rs. 14,508/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Eight only) upon confirmation. The

workman worked honestly, sincerely, and with full devotion to his duty, without giving any cause for complaint.

However, on 21.02.2013, he was fined Rs. 1,000/- for the first time on the charge of walking on a belt, which

he claims was baseless. On the same day, his services were terminated. He claims to have approached the management

repeatedly to allow him to resume duty, but was not permitted to do so. Accordingly, after exhausting legal remedies, he

filed the present claim praying that his termination be declared unlawful and illegal, and he be reinstated with full back

wages.

In response, Management-1 filed its written statement. It submitted that the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security

(BCAS) is a regulatory body responsible for the implementation, enforcement, and regulation of civil aviation security

at civil airports in India. RDCOS, BCAS is the regional office responsible for security functions at Delhi Airport. It

stated that in practice, the employer forwards duly filled and signed forms to RDCOS, BCAS along with requisite

documents to enable issuance of Aerodrome Entry Pass (AEP), but BCAS has no locus standi concerning the terms of

employment or duties of any individual at the airside. Therefore, it submitted that the claim against it be dismissed as

there doesn‘t exist any employer-employee relationship between them and the claimant.

Management-2 also filed the written statement, taking preliminary objections stating that claim petition is not

5388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

maintainable before this tribunal and is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. It alleged that the claimant misbehaved

with a female staff member at T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, and thereafter chose to abandon his services, and therefore,

the present claim is without any merit. On merits, it didn‘t dispute the claimant‘s employment. Its only defence was that

the claimant committed misconduct and abandoned the services of the company himself.

Rejoinders to the written statements of both managements were filed by the claimant, wherein he denied the

averments made by the managements and reaffirmed the assertions made in his claim statement.

After completion of the pleadings, following issues had been framed:



Whether the claim petition is maintainable under I.D. Act? If so, its effect?



Whether this tribunal has jurisdiction to try instant Industrial Dispute? If so, its effect?



Whether workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages along with other benefits

including continuity in service? If so, its effect?

Whether workman is entitled for compensation for his illegal termination along with bank interest on

the pending wages till date.

To prove his case, the claimant entered the witness box and relied upon three documents:



Appointment letter issued by ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Management-2) (Ex. WW1/1).



Confirmation letter issued by ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (Ex.WW1/2).



Appreciation letter issued by Home Tech Services Pvt. Ltd. (Ex. WW1/3).

During cross-examination, he admitted that his salary for December 2012 was paid on his last working day,

i.e., 21.02.2013. He also admitted that he was fined Rs. 1,000/- on 21.02.2013. However, he denied having

misbehaved with any female staff member at the IGI Airport site or that he had voluntarily left the company after the

incident.

Management-1 filed affidavits of two witnesses, Sh. Yudhvir Singh, sub-inspector, and Sh. Rupesh Singh

Diler, inspector, both posted at the office of the Regional Deputy Commissioner of Security, Bureau of Civil Aviation

Security, however, neither has appeared before the tribunal for deposition, and hence their affidavits hold no

evidentiary value.

Management-2 initially examined Sh. Vinod Rana, but during the pendency of proceedings, he passed

away. Management-2 sought and was granted permission to examine another witness and filed an affidavit of Sh.

Israr Ahmad. However, it later submitted that it no longer wished to examine him, and the affidavit was treated as

withdrawn.

The claimant‘s case entirely rests on the documents exhibited by him. The claimant‘s claim is that his

services were terminated illegally and without assigning any reason on 21.02.2013 in violation of section 25F of the

Act, and he has remained unemployed ever since. Nothing substantial was made out in his cross-examination to rebut

this. The claimant categorically denied the allegation of misconduct and reiterated that he was not permitted to resume

duty.

In its defense, the management-2 failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that the claimant voluntarily

left the job or committed any misconduct.

In light of the above discussion, my issue-wise findings are as follows:

Issue no.-1

The proceedings are held to be maintainable before this tribunal because the claimant was employed as an ‗HVAC

Assistant‘ and the managements have not produced any evidence to prove that the claimant doesn‘t fall within the

definition of ‗workman‘ as defined under section 2(s) of the Act.

Issue no.-2

It is an admitted fact that the claimant was an employee of management-2 whose office is situated in Noida, U.P.

Therefore, it is held that this tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute.

Issue no.3 and 4

The claimant‘s case is that his service was terminated by Management-2 without assigning any reason or giving any

prior notice, in violation of Section 25F of the Act.

Section 2(oo) defines the term ‗retrenchment‘, while Section 25F of the Act sets out the conditions to be complied

with by an employer before retrenching a workman. The definitions under Section 2(oo) and Section 25F of the Act

are as follows:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5389

[(oo)] ―Retrenchment‖ means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

[(bb)] termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry, or of such contract being terminated under

a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.

Section 25F –Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that

employer until—

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of

the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to

fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six

months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be

specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.

From the perusal of the above sections, it is clear that in industrial law, there is no absolute protection against

retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An employee can be retrenched by an employer if certain

conditions are fulfilled. The first exception has been provided within the definition itself, namely when the a

workman is terminated by way of disciplinary action. Other exceptions include voluntary retirement, superannuation

as per contract, non-renewal or termination of a contract on its expiry, and termination due to continued ill-health.

The entire case of the claimant rests on the fact that his services were terminated illegally and without

assigning any reason. Management-2‘s case is that the claimant was fined Rs. 1,000/- because he was found

misbehaving with a female staff member at T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi. However, to substantiate its defence,

Management-2 failed to produce any witness for cross-examination, nor has it been stated anywhere that a domestic

enquiry was held against the claimant. Mere bald assertion does not give the management any leverage to escape

liability. Moreover, if a workman is to be punished, an enquiry is mandatory prior to imposing such punishment. In

this case, neither was an enquiry proved, nor did any witness appear to support the allegation that the claimant had

misbehaved with any female staff.

Coming to Section 25F of the Act, although Management-2 took the defence that the claimant abandoned his

services, it failed to produce any record in this regard. Therefore, the question of compliance with the mandatory

provisions of Section 25F before retrenching the claimant does not arise.

The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Nand Kishore Yadav v. State of Punjab, AIR 1981 SC 2045, held that:

―If the employer takes the plea that the workman has abandoned his service, the burden of proof lies on the

employer to establish such abandonment by cogent and reliable evidence. Mere absence from duty does not

amount to abandonment unless it is proved that the workman had no intention to return to work.‖

In another matter, G.T. Lad v. Chemicals & Fibres India Ltd., (1979) 1 SCC 590, the Apex Court expressed

similar views.

During cross-examination, the claimant denied that he voluntarily left the company and stated that he

regularly approached the management to allow him to resume duty, but was denied. On the other hand, Management-

2 alleged that the claimant misbehaved with a female staff member and abandoned service, but failed to produce any

evidence to substantiate either claim. No domestic enquiry was conducted, nor was any notice issued to the claimant

regarding misconduct or abandonment.

In view of the above facts and Management-2‘s failure to prove either abandonment or misconduct, and the

claimant having made a prima facie case of termination without notice, the termination is held to be illegal.

As far as Management-1 is concerned, the claimant has not stated that he was employed by Management-1.

His case is that he was deployed by Management-2. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the claimant against

Management-1, due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship.

Now, the question that arises is what relief the claimant is entitled to. As a general rule, when termination is

declared illegal, the appropriate relief is reinstatement with full back wages. However, much time has already

passed and there is no positive evidence that the claimant was unemployed since his termination from service. It is

held by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Employers, Management of central P & D Inst.

Ltd. Vs Union of India & Another, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 633 that it is not always mandatory to order

5390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reinstatement even after the termination is held illegal. Instead, compensation can be granted by the industrial

adjudicator. Similar views were expressed by Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Indian Hydraulic

Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kishan Devi and Bhagwati Devi & Ors., ILR (2007) Delhi 219 wherein it was held by the

court that even if the termination of a claimant is held illegal, the industrial adjudicator is not supposed to direct

reinstatement along with full back wages and the relief can be moulded according to the facts and circumstances of

each case and the court can allow compensation to the claimant instead of reinstatement with back wages. The same

view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo

Krishna Naik 2025 Latest Caselaw 157 SC stating that upon dismissal, being set aside by a court of Law,

reinstatement with full back wages is not an automatic relief. In some cases, lump sum compensation is a better relief.

Given these circumstances, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) is

considered an appropriate relief. Hence, management-2 (ETA Engineering Pvt. Ltd.) is hereby directed to pay a

compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the claimant within two months of notification of this

award, failing which the management shall also pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date

of award till the date of realization. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification under

section 17 of the Act. The file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated 30.06.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 24 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1407.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एम्प्लाआज प्रोजवडेंट फण्ड अगेनाआजेिन; रॉयल आंडस्ट्रीज सर्थवसेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जनिांत

िेमकांत फटाके के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-

08/2017) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

24.07.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-93]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1407.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 08/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Employees

Provident Fund Organisation; Royal Industries Services and Shri Nishant Hemkant Phatake which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 24.07.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-93]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Received on : 27/06/2017.

Registered on

: 27/06/2017.

Decided on

: 14/11/2024.

Duration

: Y. M. D.

06 05 17

BEFORE THE MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT, SOLAPUR.

(Presided over by Shri.P.P.Rajvaidya)

REFERENCE I.T. NO.8/2017.

Exh-O.

(CNR No.MHIC130001922017)

1.The Employees Provident Fund Organization,

}

Surwase Towers, Railway Lines, Solapur.

}

Notice/Summons be served on

}

Regional P.F. Commissioner

}

2.Employees Provident Funds Organization (Regional),

}

Near Cantonment Office, Golibar Maidan, Pune.

}

3.Royal Industries Services,

}

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5391

Royal Plaza, Murarji Peth,

}

Near Hotel Panchali, Solapur 413001.

}

(Notice/Summons be served on Mr. Somvanshi).

}...FIRST PARTY.

Versus

Mr.Nishant Hemkant Phatake,

}

Age.39 Years, Occu.:Unemployed,

}

H.No.411, Budhwar Peth, Solapur.

}...SECOND PARTY.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri.Kanaki, learned advocate for the First Party Nos.1 & 2.

Shri.R.V.Damle, learned advocate for the First Party No.3.

Shri.V.R.Deshpande, learned advocate for the Second Party.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AWARD

(Passed on 14/11/2024)

On the basis of Certificate issued under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Regional Labour

Commissioner Pune, the Second Party has approached this Court and filed this reference.

In brief, case of the Second Party, as pleaded in the statement of claim, may be stated as under;

First Party No.1 is Provident Fund Office Solapur (here-in-after referred to as PF office) having a coverage

for Solapur, Osmanabad & Latur Districts under Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Various

employers are under statutory obligation to deposit provident fund and contribution for family pension in each month

with First Party Nos.1 & 2 in respect of every employee by maintaining the record. To carry out and perform their

various activities, First Party Nos.1 & 2 need services of several employees on various posts at their office. Large

number of industries, establishments & employers have been covered by the Solapur office by allotting separate

Codes.

Second Party was appointed at PF office in July 2004 as a Peon/ Sepoy and he has rendered continuous &

uninterrupted service with the said office since then. He has performed the daily works of cleaning tables in the office,

storing water, filing the various documents in different Files, giving the Files to the clerks & officers as per

requirements, making entries in Cash & Pension Registers, sewing & binding Form No.24 & Form No.9, reading cash

scroll and writing cheque numbers on the backside of cash scroll alongwith dates etc.. Second Party was performing

those works as per the directions & instructions given by the Superiors on daily basis. The works which the Second

Party was performing is of perennial nature and is available on day-to-day basis. Said work is integral part & parcel of

day-to-day functioning of PF office. Said office has issued office notes, orders, work arrangement orders and had

directed the Second Party to perform the work of searching Files & keeping 5,000 Files serially, preparing new

Pension Files & PPO, reconciliation of old Pension Files, preparing Form No.24 of old Files, sorting of new PPO

bank wise & branch wise, lamination of certificates, preparing new scheme certificates & Pension Files etc. from time

to time. Second Party had attended said work even on holidays. Those works will be available with PF office till said

office is in existence.

Though the work of permanent & perennial cannot be allotted to labour contractors as per provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short CLRA Act), it was given illegally to labour

contractors. At the time of registration and at the time of taking the licences for principal employer & labour

contractor, First Party Nos.1 to 3 have stated to Registering Authority that they will provide the work of housekeeping

only on contract basis which is of intermittent & temporary nature though said work is not of that nature. First Party

Nos.1 & 2 have allotted the work of perennial & continuous nature to contractor‘s labour i.e. to the Second Party. The

tactics of employing Second Party under sham & bogus labour contract is used only to give bypass and go bye to the

provisions of various Labour Laws & Regulations with sole intention to deny the right of permanency to the workers

like Second Party. Said illegal modus operandi was used to facilitate the forbidden hire & fire policy which is only a

smokescreen and eyewash having no legal basis, foundation and sanctity.

Second Party has worked continuously at the PF office for more than 240 days in each year from July 2004

without any break despite which, his services have been terminated by oral order dtd.10/8/2016 without giving any

prior notice, notice-pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation. Seniority list was not prepared & published

before termination of Second Party and any opportunity of hearing was not given to him as per principles of natural

justice. There was no legal, valid and reasonable ground for his oral termination. The work which the Second Party

5392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was performing has been allotted to other labours of the same contractor after his termination. Service of Second

Party has been terminated only to deny legal & justifiable right of permanency/regularization in service though he is

entitled for it immediately on completion of 240 days service as per the provisions of Standing Orders & Circulars.

Second Party had met Shri.Sudhakar Bhosle of PF office several times after his termination and said Shri.Bhosle had

promised to take back the Second Party in service by taking into consideration his past meritorious service hence,

Second Party had not issued the demand notice immediately after his termination.

On these grounds, Second Party has prayed to allow the reference & answer it in the affirmative, to direct the

First Party to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service, to direct the First Party to grant

status of permanent/regular employee on him from the date of completion of 240 days service at PF office and to

direct to pay him the difference of the wages & allowances accordingly with interest @ 12% per annum so also, to

direct the First Party to pay the difference between actually paid wages along with 12% interest and wages paid to

permanent workers with retrospective effect.

First Party Nos.1 & 2 have resisted the statement of claim by filing written statement below Exh.C-4. By

denying most of the allegations made against them in the statement of claim, First Party Nos.1 & 2 have contended

that Second Party was not their employee and he was not appointed by First Party No.1 and thus, there is no

employer-employee relationship between First Party No.1 and Second Party. It is contended that the work is of

supportive & ancillary nature and it does not involve any primary official work done by the PF office. It is further

contended that the system of official procedure was appropriately followed by First Party No.1 for engaging the

Second Party through First Party No.3 and Second Party had agreed on 29/3/2017 before Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) Pune in the case filed by him that he has been employed by First Party No.3 so also, he is

willing to work with First Party No.3 wherever the work is available but now he is falsely claiming to be the

employee of First Party No.1.

First Party Nos.1 & 2 have contended that First Party No.1 has never terminated the Second Party, First Party

No.3 has provided some other work to the Second Party at some other place but Second Party has denied to work

there. It is contended that Shri.Sudhakar Bhosale has never promised the Second Party for taking in service. It is

contended that documents referred to by Second Party were never maintained by the PF office, Second Party was

employed by First Party No.3 and First Party No.1 has no role to play regarding the employment status of Second

Party. On these grounds, First Party Nos.1 & 2 have claimed rejection of the statement of claim.

First Party No.3 has resisted the statement of claim by filing written statement below Exh.CA-9. By denying

most of the contents made in statement of claim, First Party No.3 has contended that it is doing a business of supply

of manpower for housekeeping to various industries and Second Party is working with the First Party No.3 in the said

contract. It is contended that First Party No.3 had taken part in the process as per the tender published by First Party

Nos.1 & 2 and had accepted the work. It is contended that the tenure of last tender of First Party No.3 was up to

31/03/2017, First Party No.3 had supplied security guards, sanitation staff & housekeeping staff to the PF office and

Second Party was doing the said tender work during the contract period from 1/9/2010 to 1/3/2015 and thereafter

from 01/05/2016 to 10/08/2016. First Party No.3 has contended that Second Party himself has left the job on

10/8/2016. First Party No.3 has denied that services of Second Party were orally terminated. It is contended that

Second Party cannot claim the job of his choice as he was appointed in various contract works and he has not been

terminated by First Party No.3. It is contended that after completion of tender period, contract work of the First Party

No.3 has come to an end. On these grounds, by contending that there is no cause of action for filing this reference,

First Party No.3 has claimed rejection of the reference.

10.

My learned Predecessor has framed Issues below Exh.O-3. I recorded my findings on those issues for the

reasons stated thereunder;

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1.Whether the Second Party proves that he is entitled for reinstatement with full back

wages with First Party?

…Partly yes.

2.Whether the Second Party is entitled for the rights of permanency/regularization

with Solapur Provident Fund Office?

…Partly yes.

3.Whether the Second Party proves that it is entitled for difference of wages as given

to permanent employees of the Provident Fund Office?

...No.

4.Whether the Second Party proves that there exists employer-employee relationship

between First Party No.1 and the Second Party?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5393

...Yes.

5.Whether the Second Party proves that this Court has jurisdiction to try the present

Reference?

...Yes.

6.Whether the Second Party is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

...Partly yes.

7.What order?

...As per final order.

REASONS

11.

In support of his claim, Second Party has examined himself by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-

chief at Exh.UW-1. Besides it, Second Party has produced copies of muster rolls for showing his attendance from year

2010 to 2016 at Exh.U-10 and Certificate dtd.13/4/2017 issued by Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 2A

of Industrial Disputes Act at Exh.U-11. Being summoned by Second Party, RSV Labour Contractor & Services has

produced letter at Exh.U-14 stating therein that it had supplied manpower to PF office on contract basis from

01/04/2007 to 31/08/2010 and Second Party was one amongst those labours. Second Party has also produced copies

of letters addressed to PF Office by labour contractors and copies of applications filed by him under RTI Act, copy of

his ID Card etc. with Exh.U-6. Being called upon by Second Party, Juni Mill Bekar Kamgar Varasdar v Janhit

Sangharsh Samiti Solapur has produced the record showing that Second Party was working at PF office on contract

basis as per the contract entered into between the said Samiti and the Solapur PF office for a period from 01/03/2004

to 31/03/2007.

12.

First Party Nos.1 & 2 have examined two witnesses on their behalf viz. Shri.Thakur by filing his affidavit in

lieu of examination-in-chief at Exh.CW-1 and Shri.Lakhole by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief at

Exh.CW-2. Besides it, First Party Nos.1 & 2 have produced copy of agreement dtd.01/05/2016 entered into between

Royal Industries and PF office at Exh.C-11, copy of CLRA Act at Exh.C-12, letter issued by Regional PF

Commissioner at Exh.C-13 and copy of approval letter issued by Regional PF Commissioner alongwith copies of the

proceedings taken place before Conciliation Officer at Exh.C-14.

13.

First Party No.3 has not examined any witness on its behalf.

14.

I have heard learned advocate Shri.V.R.Deshpande for Second Party, learned advocate Shri.A.S.Kanki for

First Party Nos.1 & 2 and learned advocate Shri.R.V.Damle for First Party No.3.

AS TO ISSUE NOs.(1) TO (6):

15.

All the issues are taken together for consideration. Learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 argued that

Second Party was not appointed by First Party Nos.1 & 2 and Second Party was working with First Party No.1 as a

contract employee appointed by the contractors hence, there was no employer-employee relationship between First

Party Nos.1 & 2 and the Second party due to which, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the reference under the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. He argued that entire control over the work of the Second Party was of labour

contractors, payment to the Second Party was being made by the labour contractors only & Second Party had

admitted in clear terms before the Labour Commissioner Pune that he is ready to work for labour contractor at any

place wherever the work is available. He argued that PF office is office of Central Government where no appointment

can be made without following recruitment process, grounds raised in statement of claim are not sufficient to accept

the prayers made therein hence, reference shall be answered in the negative.

16.

Learned advocate for First Party No.3 argued that in view of the admissions given in cross-examination by

the second party, it is clear that First Party has no role in discontinuing the services of the second party. He argued that

second party was working with First Party Nos.1 & 2 as a contract labour supplied by First Party No.3 as per the

agreement and necessary wages have been paid to the second party for the work performed by him.

17.

As against this, learned advocate for Second Party argued that Second Party had taken up the matter to

Regional Labour Commissioner Pune and as the conciliation had failed, said authority has issued Certificate under

Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act for enabling the Second Party to approach the Labour Court/Industrial

Court at Solapur for adjudication of the industrial dispute. He argued that Second Party has worked for First Party

No.1 continuously for a long period, the work is of perennial nature which cannot be performed through labour

contractors yet, by executing sham & bogus agreements, PF Office has exploited the Second Party by paying meager

wages as compared to the regular employees who were performing similar type of work. He argued that PF Office &

Labour Contractors are not registered under CLRA Act hence, the agreements are bogus due to which, Second Party is

employee of PF office hence, the objection as to jurisdiction of this Court raised by First Party Nos.1 & 2 is not

5394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sustainable. He further argued that agreements entered into with labour contractors by PF office from time to time are

sham, bogus & camouflage with a view to deny the legitimate rights of permanency of the Second Party. He argued

that services of the Second Party are illegally terminated without following provisions of Section 25(F) & Section

25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act. In support of his argument, learned advocate for Second Party has placed reliance on

the following authorities;

i) Judgment dtd.04/03/2010 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a case of

The General Manager (P & A), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Vs. The General Secretary, General Employees Association & Ors (Writ

Petition No.4814/2009.),

ii) Judgment dtd.23/02/2023 of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in a case of

The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd Vs. Engineering & General Workers

Union No.2 (Writ Petition No.3788/2012),

iii)R.K.Panda Vs. Steel Authority of India reported in (1994)5 SCC 304,

iv)Power Grid Corporation Vs. 17 Workers reported in 2014(140) FLR 93.

v) Judgment dtd.12/03/2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines (Civil Appeal

Nos.4092-4093/2024.

I have gone through those authorities.

18.

In a case of The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd cited above, Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court has

extensively dealt with the provisions of Section 10 of the CLRA Act. In para-20 of the Judgment, Hon‘ble High Court

had formulated four questions for consideration. While answering question No.1 framed as ―Whether a Notification

under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act is a prerequisite for the Industrial Tribunal to have jurisdiction to decide the matter

relating to reinstatement, regularization of services of contract labour?‖, Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court has held as

under;

21.5

A perusal of Section 10 would indicate that the State Government can in certain cases prohibit

contract labour which would necessarily mean that it is only as regards the areas where State Government by exercise

of powers under Section 10 can prohibit itThe reference made by Shri.H.N.Muralidhar, learned counsel as regards

Section 10, in my considered opinion, is completely misconceived inasmuch as Section 10 relates to

prohibition of contract labour in certain industries. The submission of Shri.Muralidhar that unless there is prohibition

by notification under Section 10, an employer can engage contract labour, is according to me again misconceived.

Merely because there is no notification under Section 10 of CLRA, the same would not permit an employer who is

not registered under Section 7 to enter into a contract for contract labour with a contractor who is not registered

under Section 12. The requirement of Section 7 and 12 are to be complied with irrespective of whether there

is a notification under Section 10 or not.

21.6

Section 10 only prohibits an engagement of a contract labour and would have no bearing and is not

a prerequisite for a workman who is engaged by employer under a contract to raise a dispute for redressal of his

grievance.

21.7

In the present matter, the facts on record and which are not in dispute indicate that the workman

had been engaged by the employer and were working with him, subsequently their services were shifted by the

employer to certain agencies without their consent and they were regarded as contract labour. It is also on record that

employer has not registered himself under Section 7 of CLRA and the contractor has not registered under

Section 12 of CLRA, let alone the labour being registered under the contractor as contract labour. Thereafter the

contractor terminated the contract which was accepted by the employer resulting in the workers being without

employment. The Tribunal has come to a categorical finding that the so-called agreement between the employer and

contractor is a sham agreement entered into with the sole purpose and intention of making payment of lesser amount

to the workers.

19.

In a case of The General Manager (P & A), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. The General

Secretary, General Employees Association cited above, Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has considered the aspects

required to determine whether the contract is a contract of service or not and whether the concerned employee is

employee of contractor or principal employer. It would be just to reproduce here para 49 to 54 from the said

Judgment.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5395

49. Determination of the vexed questions as to whether a contract is a contract of service or not a contract

for service and whether the concerned employees are employees of the contractors or the principal employer has

never been an easy task. No decision had laid down any hard and fast rule nor is it possible to do so. The question in

each case has to be answered having regard to the facts involved therein. No single test-be it control test, or any other

test has been held to be the determinative factor for determining the jural relationship of employer and employee.

50. In spite of the obvious importance of the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor,

the tests to be applied are vague and may, in a borderline case, be difficult to apply. Historically, the solution lay in

applying the control test, i.e. could the employer control not just what the person was to do, but also the manner of his

doing it i.e. ‗how‘- if so, that person was his employee. In the context in which it mainly arose in the nineteenth

century, of domestic, agricultural and manual workers, this test had much to commend it, but with the increased

sophistication of industrial processes and the greater numbers of professional and skilled people being in salaried

employment, it soon became obvious that the test was insufficient (for example in the case of a doctor, architect,

skilled engineer, pilot, etc.) and so, despite certain attempts to modernize it, it is now accepted that in itself ‗control‘ is

no longer the sole test, though it does remain a factor and perhaps, in some cases, a decisive one.

51. In the search for a substitute test, ideas have been put forward of an ‗integration‘ test, i.e. whether the

person was fully integrated into the employer‘s concern. In the present case, looking to the fact that the workers

have been working for such a long time in the establishment of the Petitioner, it can be said that they are fully

integrated in the Petitioner's establishment.

Once again, integration is not now viewed as a sufficient test in itself, but rather as a potential factor which

may be useful in allowing a Court to take a wider and more realistic view. The modern approach has been to abandon

the search for a single test, and instead to take a multiple or pragmatic approach, weighing all the factors for and

against a contract of employment and determining on which side the

scales eventually settle.

52. The control test and the integration tests, therefore, are not only factors which can be said to decisive.

With a view to elicit the

answer, the Court is required to consider several factors which would have

a bearing

on the result including (a)who is appointing authority i.e. contractor or principal employer; (b)who is the paymaster;

(c)the extent of control and supervision; (d)who directs ‗how‘ the job is to be done; (e)nature of establishment.

Thus, many factors have a bearing on the result. Who is paymaster, who can dismiss, how long the alternative service

lasts, what machinery is employed, have to be kept in mind. The expressions used in any individual case must always

be considered in regard to the subject. However, amongst the many tests suggested I think that one of the most

satisfactory, by which to ascertain who is the employer at any particular time is to ask who is

entitled to tell the

employee the way in which he is to do the work upon which he is engaged. In the present case, the evidence on record

shows that it was the officers of the Petitioner who told the workers what work is to be done and how it is to

be done.

53. It needs to be highlighted that post abolition tests to be applied are laid down in para 125(5) of the

Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd and others

Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and others reported in (2001)7 SCC 1. In the said decision, it is observed

that on issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions

of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed

either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract

labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with

various beneficial Legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not

genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employee of the principal

employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned

subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose. If the contract is found to be genuine and

prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has

been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or

other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference

to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary,

by relaxing the condition. In the

present case, from the evidence I find that all the tests which are required to be applied as per law declared by the

Supreme Court are fulfilled and Tribunal has rightly directed these workers to be regularized.

54. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v Union of

India and Ors (2009 I CLR 659), wherein it is observed as under;

―In the light of the decision is Umadevi‘s case, the earlier decision in Steel Authority of India‘s case would be

confined only to private sector and contract workers in State or public sector undertaking will not be entitled to

claim regularization even if the contract was sham and bogus and as such the order of reference ought to be set aside.

In Umadevi‘s case the Court was not concerned with the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act and the power of the industrial adjudicator to grant appropriate relief in the reference under the

Industrial Disputes Act. The Case does not even deal with the judgment in the Steel Authority of India‘s case. Both

5396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

operate in different fields and the decision in Umadevi‘s case does not deal with the question of reference

and forum where rights will have to be adjudicated. Umadevi‘s case is concerned with relief and the industrial

adjudicator is required to examine the said question. The respondent workmen cannot be denied reference at this

stage. As to

what relief will be granted is uncertain and depends upon the number of facts. This position is

also clear from at least three Judgments, i.e. i. Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union Vs Mineral

Exploration Corporation Limited and Anr.(2006 III CLR 956 SC), ii. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd Vs. Engg.

Mazdoor Sangh (2007)1 SCC 250) and iii. Madhya Pradesh Administration V Tribhuban (2007)9 SCC 748).

20.

By referring the law laid down by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a case of R.K.Panda Vs. Steel Authority of

India cited above, Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has held in the said Judgment that whether the contract labourers

have become the employees of the principal employer in the course of time and whether the engagement and

employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage & a smokescreen, is a question of fact and has to

be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. In para-57 of the said authority, Hon‘ble

Bombay High Court has observed as under;

―...From the evidence, it is seen that i] the management controls and supervises the work of the workmen, ii]

the workers have been working for a very long period in the establishment of the petitioner; it can be said that they

are integrated in the establishment of the petitioner, iii] though the responsibility is cast upon the contractors to make

payment of wages, provident fund contribution etc, the entire payments were overseen by the Petitioner Management.

Thus, even though the certain amounts were paid by the contractor, in the real sense, ultimately, it is the Petitioner

Management which pays the amount; iv] in spite of change of contractors, neither the workmen were replaced nor

fresh appointments were made. All these facts show that the contract was sham and bogus and a mere camouflage. On

lifting the veil and looking to the conspectus of factors governing employment, the conclusion is that the real

employer of the workers in the present petition is the petitioner.‖

21.

In the said Judgment, Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has referred to the decision of Hon‘ble Apex Court in a

case of Hindalco Industries Ltd wherein Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that (a)the workmen have been employed

for long years and despite a change of contractors the workers continued to be employed in the canteen, (b)evidence

on record established the ultimate control of management on the canteen employees, in such cases, the Court would

be entitled to pierce the veil and arrive at a finding that the justification relating to appointment of a contractor is

sham or nominal and in effect & substance there exists a direct relationship of employer and employee between the

principal and the workmen. By making reference to those observations, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that ―In

the present case also, both these aspects are found very much present. The material on record clearly shows that the

activities of the workmen are ultimately controlled by the Company. Thus, considering all the mentioned factors

cumulatively, it can safely be said that the Respondents Workmen are in fact the workmen of the Petitioners –

Management. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly right in arriving at the conclusion that the contract is

nothing but a paper agreement and granting relief‖.

22.

Keeping in mind the legal position laid down in those authorities, I would go to discuss the evidence

available on record. Before that, it would be apposite to consider the jurisdictional aspect based on law point only. It is

an admitted fact that First Party Nos.1 & 2 are the offices established under the Employees Provident Funds Act

which is a Central Act hence, appropriate Government is the Central Government. Learned advocate for Second Party

drew attention of this Court to Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. Third Proviso appended to Sub-Section 1 of

Section 10 provides that where the dispute in relation to which Central Government is appropriate Government, it

shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be,

constituted by State Government. In view of the said provision, this Court is satisfied that the dispute referred to this

Court by the Regional Labour Commissioner is within the jurisdiction of this Court. So far as relationship between

First Party Nos.1 & 2 and Second Party is concerned, said aspect will have to be decided by taking into consideration

the evidence adduced and produced by both the parties so also, the legal position laid down in the authorities cited

above.

23.

Second Party has reiterated most of the contents of his statement of claim in his affidavit of examination-in-

chief. In his cross-examination taken on behalf of First Party No.3, Second Party has stated that he was not employed

with First Party No.3, he is not terminated from the service by First Party No.3, he has no grievance against First

Party No.3 and monthly salary was being paid to him by the First Party No.3. In the cross-examination taken on

behalf of First Party Nos.1 & 2, Second Party has stated that PF office had appointed him by saying that contract to

First Party No.3 has been given for record purposes. He has admitted in his said cross-examination that First Party

Nos.1 & 2 had not given appointment letter to him and his appointment was not by following procedure of giving

advertisement, taking examination and interviews. He has admitted that First Party Nos.1 & 2 had given letter to First

Party No.3 for supply of workers. He has admitted that First Party Nos.1 & 2 used to give one single Cheque to First

Party No.3 towards the salaries of the workers and First Party No.3 used to make payment of salary to him from the

said amount by making deduction of ESI & PF contributions.

24.

Witness Shri.Thakur of First Party Nos.1 & 2 has reiterated most of the contents of written statement of First

Party Nos.1 & 2 in his affidavit of examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination taken on behalf of First Party No.3,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5397

Shri.Thakur has admitted that First Party Nos.1 & 2 had given a contract during a period from September-2010 to

31/03/2011 for supply of workers by executing agreement with the labour contractor and the labour contractor had

supplied workers as per said contract. In the cross-examination taken on behalf of Second Party, Shri.Thakur has

admitted about the nature of work to be performed by PF office and the process undertaken daily for cleaning of the

premises of PF office. Shri.Thakur has admitted in his cross-examination that the contract labours have to perform

their works in the PF office only and the work of proper filing being performed by contract labours is being

supervised by the concerned clerk in Billing Section of the PF office. He has stated in his cross-examination that he is

not aware of the works being performed by the contract labours in the PF office before he joined the office in

October-2021. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the work which the Second Party was performing in the

PF office in year 2016 is still available. Shri.Thakur has expressed his inability to tell whether Solapur PF office has

got itself registered under the CLRA Act.

25.

Witness Shri.Lakhole of First Party Nos.1 & 2 has stated that First Party No.1 hires outsourced manpower as

per requirement on annual basis through open tender system and agreement entered into with the contractual agency

is being renewed annually. He stated that First Party No.3 had supplied outsourced manpower to First Party No.1 as

per requirement on the basis of the contract, First Party No.1 had made payment of the salaries of those workers to

First Party No.3 and it had not directly paid salary or wages to those workers hence, there was no employee-employer

between the Second Party and First Party No.1. He stated that Section 10 of CLRA Act prohibits employment of

contract labours in certain cases relating to the work of perennial in nature, First Party No.1 has not maintained

muster rolls of the contract employees and it is the responsibility of the contractual agency to maintain it. He stated

that Second Party was engaged through First Party No.3 and Second Party had agreed it so also, had agreed to work

with the First Party No.3 as per the availability of work in the case filed before the Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central) Pune.

26.

In his cross-examination taken on behalf of the Second Party, Shri.Lakhole has admitted that there is no

provision in Provident Funds Act to appoint employees through outsourcing and he never saw any document which

would show that Delhi Head Office has authorized the Solapur PF office to make appointments of employees by

outsourcing. He has admitted in his cross-examination that there is no reference in agreement dtd.01/05/2016 that the

contractor shall appoint a supervisor to supervise the work of the contract employees. He admitted that officers of PF

office used to supervise the work of the contract employees. He expressed his inability to tell that Second Party and

other contractual employees were performing the work of Filing, record keeping and work related to Pension

Department etc. in the PF office and their services were being utilized by PF office at the time of attachment &

auction of properties of PF defaulting employers. He has admitted that payment was being made to the contractor on

the basis of the actual working days of each contract labourer.

27.

Copies of agreements available on record show that PF office used to enter into agreements with the labour

contractors for supply of labourers at PF office for performing the works of housekeeping, sanitation, security guard

and other miscellaneous type of works like helper specified in a category of unskilled workers. Second Party has

come with a specific case that he was in continuous employment of First Party Nos.1 & 2 since year 2004 till his

services came to be terminated by oral order on 10/8/2016. Contention of First Party Nos.1 & 2 is that contract was

given to various labour contractors and services of the contract labourers supplied by those labour contractors were

being utilized by PF office. Second Party had summoned the Juni Mill Bekar Kamgar Varasdar v Janhit Sangharsh

Samiti Solapur for production of documents. Accordingly, said Samiti has produced letter at Exh.U-16 wherein, it is

mentioned that said Samiti had taken a contract from PF office for supply of contract laboures from 01/03/2004 to

31/03/2007. It mentioned in the said letter that second party has worked as per contract at PF office under the

supervision of PF office from 01/06/2004 to 31/03/2007. Post of Second Party is mentioned in the documents

produced by the said Samiti with list Exh.U-18 as ―Guard‖. Said Samiti has also produced muster rolls which show

the number of working days of the Second Party. First Party Nos.1 & 2 have neither disputed the entries in the

documents produced by said Samiti nor adduced any evidence to rebut the entries in those documents.

28.

On request of Second Party, witness summons was issued to R.S.V.Labour Contractor & Services. Said

labour contractor has also produced documents with Exh.U-13. Letter produced at Exh.U-14 by the said labour

contractor shows that second party was working at PF office from 1/04/2007 to 31/08/2010 as per the labour contract

given to said contractor by the PF office. Said contractor has produced copies of bills raised by it with PF office for

months March-2010 & April 2010. First Party Nos.1 & 2 have not disputed the genuineness of the documents

produced by said labour contractor also.

29.

Second Party has produced copies of Biometric report maintained by the PF office. He has also produced

copy of handwritten muster roll for years 2010 to 2016. First Party No.1 & 2 have not denied the contention of First

Party No.3 that second party was working with PF office as its contract employee during a period from 01/09/2010 to

01/03/2015 and thereafter from 01/05/2016 to 10/08/2016. First Party Nos.1 & 2 have neither disputed the

genuineness of the documents nor adduced any evidence to disprove the contents of the documents produced by the

Second Party for showing his working days at PF office. Having considered the documents available on record as

mentioned above, it is clear that Second Party was continuously working at PF office for a long period from year 2004

to 10/8/2016 except for some period in between.

5398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

30.

The witnesses of First Party Nos.1 & 2 have stated that Second Party was the employee of First Party No.3.

They stated that First Party No.1 had no role to play in the employment of Second Party. Documentary evidence

available on the record shows that PF office had entered into agreements with other labour contractors also than First

Party No.3 and in spite of change of contractors, Second Party continued to work in the PF office for a long period.

There is no material to show that either First Party No.3 or any of the labour contractor had entered into agreement

with Second Party for making his appointment at PF office. Those aspects show that though the Second Party was

shown to have appointed through labour contractors, his real appointing authority was the PF office.

31.

Learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 submitted that entire control over the work of Second Party was

of the labour contractors through whom, Second Party was employed on contract basis. There is no material to show

that labour contractors either themselves or anybody on their behalf used to remain present at the PF office to

supervise & control the work of the Second Party. Copies of agreements produced by the PF office show that duty

hours of the contract employees were fixed whereby, contract employees were supposed to attend the work half an

hour before the scheduled office opening time and to leave the office after half an hour of the scheduled closing office

time. It shows that the work entrusted to Second Party was to be performed by him for more period than the scheduled

daily office timings from which, it will have to be held that Second Party was performing the regular work and not

temporary work as is stated by the witnesses of PF office. Furthermore, contents of the agreements show that PF

office had the authority to terminate the services of contract employees in case of disobedience of the conditions on

the part of contract employees which also shows that entire control over the work of the Second Party was of PF

office. Considering those aspects, the argument of learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 is not acceptable that

entire control over the Second Party was of the labour contractors.

32.

As mentioned above, evidence on record shows that Second Party was working at PF office continuously for

a period of more than 12 years though the contractors had changed. It has come in the cross-examination of witnesses

of First Party Nos.1 & 2 that the work which the Second Party was performing is continuously available. There is no

material to show that PF office had got itself registered under Section 7 of CLRA Act. First Party Nos.3 has placed on

record copy of the Certificate of its registration obtained by it on 28/11/2013. Second Party is shown to have engaged

at PF office through First Party No.3 initially in year 2009. There is no material to show that First Party No.3 had

obtained necessary license under Section 12 of the CLRA Act that time. Furthermore, there is no material to show that

PF office which is the principal employer had got itself registered under Section 7 of the said Act. Witnesses of First

Party Nos.1 & 2 have expressed their inability to tell that First Party Nos.1 & 2 had got themselves registered under

Section 7 for engaging labour contractors.

33.

Thus, the evidence on record shows that necessary requirement of CLRA Act that both the employer & the

contractor should be registered under Section 7 & 12 respectively had not been fulfilled for engaging contract

labourers. Besides the said discrepancy, the evidence on record clearly shows that Second Party was performing work

of perennial nature at the PF office under the control of the office bearers of PF office, his entire work was under the

supervision of officers of PF office and said work is continuously available at the PF office. Witnesses of First Party

Nos.1 & 2 have stated that the work which the Second Party was performing was of supportive & ancillary nature and

it was not involving the primary office work being done by the PF office. However, evidence of the Second Party in

respect of the nature of work to be performed by him has not been denied in any manner during his cross-

examination. Second Party has stated that he was performing the work of cleaning tables, storing water, filing the

various documents in different Files, giving Files to the clerks, sewing of the Form No.24 and Form No.9, searching

of Files, reconciliation of old Pension Files, lamination of certificates etc.. Witnesses of First Party Nos.1 & 2 have

admitted in their cross-examinations that the work which the Second Party was performing in the PF Office will be

required to be performed till PF office is functioning. As the work was being performed by Second Party since last

many years, it will have to be held that his work was an integral part of the overall work to be executed for the

functioning of PF office.

34.

Second Party has worked at the Solapur PF office continuously from year 2004 till 10/08/2016 hence, it will

have to be said that Second Party is holding the necessary qualification of the post on which he was working. Second

Party being working for such a long tenure, it can be said that the work is adequately available with the PF office.

Again, evidence of Second Party that after terminating him from the employment, PF office has engaged other

contract employees for performing the same work also shows that the work is continuously available with the PF

office.

35.

Witness Shri.Lakhole of First Party Nos.1 & 2 has stated that muster rolls, attendance registers and salary

registers in respect of the Second Party are not maintained by First Party No.1 and the same were required to be

maintained by First Party No.3 through whom, the manpower was hired. Second Party has placed on record the

reports of biometrics maintained at the office of PF office wherein, attendance of Second Party has been to recorded

for few months in Year 2016 hence, the evidence advanced in that regard by Shri.Lakhole cannot be accepted to be

true. Learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 argued that Second Party was employee of First Party No.3 and

Second Party had admitted it before Labour Commissioner during conciliation proceeding so also, the second party

had admitted that he is ready to work for the labour contractor at any place. Such a statement appears to have recorded

in the documents produced by First Party Nos.1 & 2 at Exh.C-14 however, said statement was not acted upon by the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5399

Conciliation Officer. There is nothing in those documents to show that said statement was voluntarily made by the

Second Party. It is the contention of the Second Party that he was told by PF office that agreements with labour

contractors are entered into for paper work only.

36.

Documents produced by the Second Party show that labour contractors had raised bills from time to time at

the PF office by showing the post of the Second Party as a Guard. Second Party has also produced copies of muster

rolls submitted to PF office by the labour contractor with the bills. It appears that attendance of the Second Party was

being recorded in the muster rolls maintained by labour contractors for most of the time however, the fact remains that

the payment was being made to the Second Party by PF office may be, on raising demands by the labour contractors.

Contents of the agreements show that there was a condition that payment to the workers shall be made by deducting

ESI & PF contributions. Those aspects show that PF office was the paymaster in the matter of making payment to the

second party. Thus, besides having control & supervision over the work of the second party, PF office was the

paymaster. Having considered those aspects, this court is of the opinion that Second Party was actually the employee

of the PF office and the agreements entered into with the labour contractors by the PF office were sham and/or

nominal agreements. I found force in the argument of learned advocate for Second Party that the tactics of employing

Second Party under sham & bogus labour contract was used only to give bypass and go bye to the provisions of

Labour Laws & Regulations with an intention to deny the right of permanency to the workers like Second Party.

37.

Now the question for consideration is as to what relief can be granted in favour of the Second Party? It

would be apposite to reproduce here the observations of Karnataka High Court in case of the Mysore Electrical

Industrial Ltd... cited above. Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court has held in the said Judgment as;

― 22.2 The finding of the labour court as regards the alleged transaction being a sham and camouflage

has already been upheld in answer to point No.1 above. Once this court comes to a finding that the agreement is sham

and camouflage, the workmen cannot be denied their just benefits. In the present case, there is no agreement at all, it

is only a contention by the employer. The said contention is also sham and to cover of the liability of the employer to

make payment of due amounts to the workmen. The Hon‘ble Apex Court in SAIL‘s case as held that if a contract is

found to be not genuine but mere camouflage, so called labour will have to treated as employees of the principal

employer, who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned

subject to there being a vacancy and if there is no vacancy, if principal employers intends to employ regular workmen,

he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if found suitable and if it is necessary, by relaxing the

conditions as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of workmen at the time of there initial

employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to the academic qualification other than technical

qualification.‖

38.

Second Party has stated that he was not getting wages like the regular employees of PF office. He has prayed

to direct the PF office to regularize his services on completion of 240 days service and to pay him difference in wages

as like regular employees. Question had arisen whether the prayers for reinstatement and regularization in service can

be considered simultaneously. Learned advocate for the Second Party drew attention of this Court to the Judgment of

Karnataka High Court in a case of The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd cited above wherein, reliefs of reinstatement

& regularization were granted.

39.

Learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 tried to distinguish the said Judgment by submitting that it was

found in the said matter that agreements with labour contractors were not executed at all whereas, PF office in this

matter had entered into agreements with the labour contractors due to which, according to him, said authority is not

helpful to the Second Party. Though the fact situation was like it in the said matter, it is not sufficient for accepting the

argument of learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 for the reason that this Court has already reached to the

conclusion that the agreements entered into with the labour contractors by PF office were sham and/or nominal.

40.

Learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 vehemently argued that Second Party has admitted in his cross-

examination that First Party Nos.1 & 2 had not given appointment letter to him and his appointment was not by

following the procedure of giving advertisement, taking examination and interviews. He argued that PF office is the

office of Central Government and no appointment on any post can be made in the said office without following the

regular process of recruitment due to which, as the appointment of Second Party was not by following the recruitment

process, no relief can be granted in favour of Second Party.

41.

Similar argument was advanced before Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in a case of General Manager… cited

above by placing reliance on the celebrated Judgment of Hon‘ble Apex Court in a case of Umadevi.. While holding

that said argument is not acceptable, Hon‘ble High Court has held as;

―In Umadevi's case, the Court was not concerned with the

provisions

the

Contract

Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act and the power of the industrial adjudicator to grant appropriate relief in a reference

under the Industrial Disputes Act in such cases. The case does not even deal with the Judgment in the Steel Authority

of India's case. Both the decisions operate in different fields. So also in Umarani and National

Fertilizers

Ltd

5400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 2, 2025/SHRAVANA 11, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Supra), the facts were different, hence, they would not be applicable‖.

42.

Considering those observations, argument of learned advocate for First Party Nos.1 & 2 is not acceptable.

Having gone through the Judgment of Hon‘ble Karnataka High Court in a case of The Mysore Electrical Industries

Ltd cited above, this Court is of the opinion that reference needs to be answered in the affirmative partly to the effect

that Second Party is entitled for reinstatement in service at PF office Solapur. Evidence on record shows that second

party has worked for 240 days or more in each year at the PF office from year 2004 till 10/8/2016 however, his prayer

to regularize his services on completion of 240 days in an year for the first time cannot be accepted because there is

nothing to show that provisions of Model Standing Orders are applicable to PF office. Again, claim of the Second

Party is found acceptable as he has been made to work for years together as a contract employee though, there is bar

to appoint contract employees through labour contractor for performing the work of perennial nature hence, his prayer

to direct the First Party Nos.1 & 2 to pay him the difference cannot be accepted.

43.

As Second Party has not worked at the PF office from 10/8/2016, in the facts & circumstances of the case,

the criteria of no work no pay will have to applied and it would be just to hold that Second Party is not be entitled for

any back wages. So far as the prayer for regularization in service is concerned, similar directions as like the directions

given by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a case of The Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd... can be given to the First

Party Nos.1 & 2. Thus, for all the above mentioned reasons, by recording my findings on Issue Nos.(1) to (6)

accordingly, I pass the following order.

ORDER

Reference is answered partly in the affirmative.

The Second Party shall be treated as employee of the First Party Nos.1 & 2.

First Party Nos.1 & 2 shall reinstate the Second Party in service without any back wages.

First Party Nos.1 & 2 shall regularize the services of the Second Party subject to availability of vacancy and

in the event of there being no vacancy, as and when vacancy arises, the First Party Nos.1 & 2 shall give preference to

the Second Party on the basis of his number in the seniority list of the contract employees, if he is found suitable by

relaxing the conditions as to maximum age and academic qualification.

First Party Nos.1 & 2 shall maintain the seniority list of contractemployees, proper record of sanctioned

posts, number of workmen posted to such sanctioned posts or number of vacancies as when the

vacancies arise.

Inform the appropriate Government accordingly.

Date : 14/11/2024.

Dictated on

: 14/11/2024.

P. P. RAJVAIDYA Member, Industrial Court, Solapur.

नइ ददल्ली, 24 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1408.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एम्प्लाआज प्रोजवडेंट फण्ड अगेनाआजेिन; रॉयल आंडस्ट्रीज सर्थवसेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सजचन

बाबूराव भोगिेट्टी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, सोलाृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-

09/2017) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया िज, प्रकाजित करती िज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

24.07.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-94]

ददलीृ कुमार, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1408.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 09/2017) of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,

Solapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Employees

Provident Fund Organisation; Royal Industries Services and Shri Sachin Baburao Bhogshetti which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 24.07.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-94]

DILIP KUMAR, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Received on

: 27/06/2017.

Registered on

: 27/06/2017.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 2, 2025/श्रावण 11, 1947

5401

Decided on

: 14/11/2024.

Duration

: Y. M. D.

06 05 17

BEFORE THE MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT, SOLAPUR.

(Presided over by Shri.P.P.Rajvaidya)

REFERENCE I.T. NO.09/2017.

Exh-O.

(CNR No.MHIC130001932017)

1.The Employees Provident Fund Organization,

}

Surwase Towers, Railway Lines, Solapur.

}

Notice/Summons be served on

}

Regional P.F. Commissioner

}

2.Employees Provident Fund Organization (Regional)

}

Near Cantonment Office, Golibar Maidan, Pune.

}

3.Royal Industries Services,

}

Royal Plaza, Murarji Peth,

}

Near Hotel Panchali, Solapur 413001.

}

(Notice/Summons be served on Mr. Somvanshi).

}...FIRST PARTY.

Versus

Sachin Baburao Bhogshetti

}

Age 38 Years, Occ.: Unemployed,

}

R/o.9/B, Shiv Nivas, Kranti Sainik Nagar, Solapur. }... SECOND PARTY.