5208 GI/2025

(5571)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 31]

नइ ददल् ली, ऄगस्ट् त 10—ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025, िजनवार/श्रावण 19—श्रावण 25, 1947

No. 31]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 10—AUGUST 16, 2025, SATURDAY/SHRAVANA 19–SHRAVANA 25, 1947

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

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—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

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

(केन्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोडड)

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1457.—केंर सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

10 के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में, राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केंरीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोडड के ऄधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलयों,

जजनके 80 प्रजतित से ऄजधक कमडचाररयों ने हहदी का कायड साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को ऄजधसूजचत करती हज:

प्रधान मु्‍य अयकर अयुक्त चंडीगढ़

क्रम सं्‍या.

कायाडलय का नाम

1

कायाडलय प्रधान मु्‍ य अयकर अयुक्त, चण्डीगढ़

2

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त-1, चण्डीगढ़

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-30082025-265822

CG-DL-W-30082025-265822

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-30082025-265822

CG-DL-W-30082025-265822

5572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त, चण्डीगढ़

4

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1(1), नंगल

5

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी एवं डी.डी.ओ., रोृड़

6

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त, जिमला रेंज, जिमला

7

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, जिमला (जहमाचल प्रदेि)

8

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, जबलासृुर(जहमाचल प्रदेि)

9

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, ृालमृुर(जहमाचल प्रदेि)

10

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, मंडी (जहमाचल प्रदेि)

11

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, ृरवाणू(जहमाचल प्रदेि)

12

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, धमडिाला(जहमाचल प्रदेि)

13

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, रामृुर(जहमाचल प्रदेि)

14

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, हमीरृुर(जहमाचल प्रदेि)

15

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, डल्हौजी(जहमाचल प्रदेि)

16

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, कुल्लू (जहमाचल प्रदेि)

17

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, नूरृूर (जहमाचल प्रदेि)

18

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, उना (जहमाचल प्रदेि)

19

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(प्रिा. एवं टी.ृी.एस.), चण्डीगढ़

20

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(अइ.टी.ए.टी.), चण्डीगढ़

21

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(लेखाृरीक्षा), चण्डीगढ़

22

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(लेखाृरीक्षा), चण्डीगढ़

23

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(टी.डी.एस.)-1, चण्डीगढ़

24

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(टी.डी.एस.), रेंज लुजधयाना

25

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(टी.डी.एस.) रेंज चण्डीगढ़

26

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त (टी.डी.एस.)-2, चण्डीगढ़

27

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त (टी.डी.एस.) रेंज ृंचकूला

28

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(टी.डी.एस.) रेंज, गुप ग्राम

29

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(छूट), चण्डीगढ़

30

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(छूट), रेंज-1, चण्डीगढ़

31

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(छूट), रेंज-2, चण्डीगढ़

32

कायाडलय अयकर जनदेिक (असूचना एवं अृराजधक ऄन्वेषण), चण्डीगढ़

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5573

33

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर जनदेिक(अ. एवं अृ. ऄन्वे.), चण्डीगढ़

34

कायाडलय मु्‍ य अयकर अयुक्त, ृंचकूला

35

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त, ृंचकूला

36

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त रेंज ृंचकूला

37

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त, रोहतक

38

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त, रेंज रोहतक

39

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त रेंज-1, करनाल

40

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, कजथल

41

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त, रेंज जहसार

42

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, फतेहाबाद

43

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, चरखीदादरी

44

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, जींद

45

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त, फरीदाबाद

46

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त, रेंज-1, फरीदाबाद

47

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त, रेंज-1, गुप ग्राम

48

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त अयुक् त, रेंज-3, गुप ग्राम

49

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, नारनौल

50

कायाडलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुक्त, लुजधयाना

51

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(वी.यू)-1, लुजधयाना

52

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(वी.यू.)-1(1), लुजधयाना

53

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(वी.यू)-1(1)(3), ऄनंतनाग

54

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(वी.यू.)-1(2), सरहहद

55

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(वी.यू.)-1(3), चंडीगढ़

56

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(वी.यू)-1(3)(5), सुंदरनगर

57

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(वी.यू)-1(3)(6), बद्दी

58

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1, लुजधयाना

59

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(1), लुजधयाना

60

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(2), लुजधयाना

61

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(3), लुजधयाना

62

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(4), लुजधयाना

5574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

63

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1, जालंधर

64

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(1), जालंधर

65

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(2), जालंधर

66

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(3), जालंधर एट फगवाड़ा,

67

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(एयू)-1(4), जालंधर एट होजियारृुर

68

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1, ऄमृतसर

69

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(1), ऄमृतसर

70

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(2), ऄमृतसर

71

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(3), ऄमृतसर

72

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(4), ऄमृतसर

73

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1, बठ डा

74

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(1), बठ डा

75

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(2), बठ डा एट दफरोजृुर

76

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(ए.यू)-1(2)(3), जीरा

77

कायाडलय ऄृर अयकर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(3), बठ डा एट मोगा

78

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एयू)1(3)(4), जगराओ

79

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एयू)1(3)(5), मलेरकोटला

80

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एयू)1(3)(6), कृूरथला

81

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1(4), बठ डा एट संगप र

82

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एयू)-1(4)(2), बरनाला

83

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए.यू)-1, जम्मू

84

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(एयू)-1(1), जम्मू

85

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(एयू)-1(2), जम्मू एट ृ ानकोट

86

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(एयू)-1(3), जम्मू एट लुजधयाना

87

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त(एयू)-1(4), जम्मू एट खन्ना

88

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एयू)-1(2)(4), जम्मू एट राजौरी

89

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एयू)-1(2)(5), जम्मू एट सांबा

90

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी(एयू)-1(2)(6), जम्मू एट बारामूला

91

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, लुजधयाना

92

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-2, लुजधयाना

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5575

93

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-3, लुजधयाना

94

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-4, लुजधयाना

95

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, जहसार

96

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, बठ डा

97

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, करनाल

98

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, रोहतक

99

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, फरीदाबाद

100

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, ृंचकूला

101

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, ऄमृतसर

102

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-2, ऄमृतसर

103

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-1, गुप ग्राम

104

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील)-2, गुप ग्राम

105

कायाडलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुक्त, जिमला

106

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए.यू.)-1, जहसार

107

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए.यू.)-1(1), जहसार एट जभवानी

108

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1(2), जहसार एट जसरसा

109

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1(3 ), जहसार एट रेवाड़ी

110

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1(4), जहसार एट गुरुग्राम

111

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-1, जालंधर

112

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-2, जालंधर

113

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-1, ृरटयाला

114

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-1, चंडीगढ़

115

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-2, चंडीगढ़

116

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-1, जिमला एट सोलन

117

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-1, ृालमृुर

118

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-1, जम्मू

119

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक्त(ऄृील यूजनट)-1, श्रीनगर

120

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(अर.यू)-1, चंडीगढ़

121

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(अर. यू. )-1(1), चंडीगढ़

122

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(अर. यू. )-1(2), चंडीगढ़

5576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

123

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(अर. यू. )-1(3), चंडीगढ़

124

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1 , करनाल

125

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू.)-1(1), करनाल एट सोनीृत

126

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू.)-1(2), करनाल एट कुरुक्षेत्र

127

कायाडलय ऄृर/संयुक्त अयकर अयुक्त(ए. यू.)-1(3 ), करनाल एट यमुनानगर

128

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1(4), करनाल एट फरीदाबाद

129

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1 ,जिमला

130

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू.)-1(1), जिमला

131

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू.)-1(2), जिमला एट मण्डी

132

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1(3 ), जिमला एट ृालमृुर

133

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त अयुक्त(ए. यू. )-1(4),जिमला एट मोहाली

134

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त, वी.यू-1, गुरुग्राम

135

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त, वी.यू. -1(1), गुरुग्राम

136

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त, वी.यू. -1(2), गुरुग्राम एट ृानीृत

137

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त, वी.यू. -1(3), गुरुग्राम एट ऄम्बाला

138

कायाडलय मु्‍य अयकर अयुक्त, ऄमृतसर

139

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त-1, ऄमृतसर

140

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त, रेंज-1, ऄमृतसर

141

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडड-1 बाटला

142

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड, गुरदासृुर

143

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, तरनतारन

144

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त, रेंज-1, बठ डा

145

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, फ़रीदकोट

146

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1(4), मानसा

147

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-2(3), ऄबोहर

148

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-2(2), मुक्तसर

149

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त-1, जालंधर

150

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त, रेंज-1, जालंधर

151

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त, रेंज-4, जालंधर

152

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, होजियारृुर

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5577

153

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, दसूहा

154

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, नवांिहर

155

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, फगवाड़ा

156

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, कृूरथला

157

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, नकोदर

158

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त-1, लुजधयाना

159

कायाडलय ऄृर अयकर अयुक्त रेंज-1, लुजधयाना

160

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, मोगा

161

कायाडलय अयकर कायाडलय, जगराव

162

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-3, खन्ना

163

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, मलेरकोटला

164

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1, खन्ना

165

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त, रेंज-4, लुजधयाना

166

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त, ृरटयाला

167

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त, रेंज ृरटयाला

168

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडड-1 व 2 मंडी गोहबदगढ़

169

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडड-1 संगप र

170

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडड – सुनाम

171

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडड – नाभा

172

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडड – बरनाला

173

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडड - राजृुरा

174

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त, श्रीनगर

175

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त, रेंज-1 जम्मू

176

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-1(4), क ुअ

177

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड-2(5), कटरा

178

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त अयुक्त, रेंज श्रीनगर

179

कायाडलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, वाडड ईधमृुर

180

कायाडलय अयकर महाजनदेिालय (ऄन् वे.) चण् डीगढ़

181

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर जनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), चण्डीगढ़

182

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), चण्डीगढ़

5578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

183

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक् त (बीृीयू), चण् डीगढ़

184

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर जनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), फरीदाबाद

185

कायाडलय अयकर ईृजनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), ृानीृत

186

कायाडलय अयकर ईृजनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), ऄम्बाला

187

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त/ऄृर जनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), गुप ग्राम

188

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ जनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), रोहतक

189

कायाडलय अयकर ईृजनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), ृरवाणू

190

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ जनदेिक (ऄन् वे.), जिमला

191

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), लुजधयाना

192

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक्त जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), लुजधयाना

193

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), मोहाली

194

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), ृरटयाला

195

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक् त जनदेिक(ऄन्वे.)(एफ.ए.अइ.यू.), लुजधयाना

196

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक्त जनदेिक (बी.ृी.यू.), लुजधयाना

197

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक् त जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), जालंधर

198

कायाडलय अयकर सहा.जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), बठ डा

199

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), ऄमृतसर

200

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर/संयुक् त जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), जम्मू

201

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ जनदेिक (ऄन् वे.)-1, श्रीनगर

202

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ जनदेिक (ऄन् वे.)-2, श्रीनगर

203

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त (केंरीय), लुजधयाना

204

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त, केंरीय रेंज, लुजधयाना

205

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ अयुक् त (केंरीय) सकडल, ृरटयाला

206

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक् त (केंरीय) रेंज, जालंधर

207

कायाडलय अयकर सहायक अयुक् त (केंरीय) सकडल, ऄमृतसर

208

कायाडलय अयकर सहायक अयुक् त (केंरीय), सकडल, जम् मू

209

कायाडलय अयकर सहायक अयुक् त (केंरीय) सकडल, श्रीनगर

210

कायाडलय प्रधान अयकर अयुक्त, (कें) गुरुग्राम

211

कायाडलय अयकर संयुक् त अयुक्त, (कें) रेंज गुरुग्राम

212

कायाडलय अयकर सहायक अयुक् त (केंरीय) सकडल-1 फरीदाबाद

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5579

213

कायाडलय अयकर सहायक अयुक् त (केंरीय) सकडल-2 फरीदाबाद

214

कायाडलय अयकर ऄृर अयुक्त, (केंरीय) रेंज. चंडीगढ़

215

कायाडलय अयकर ईृ अयुक् त (केंरीय) सकडल, करनाल

216

कायाडलय अयकर सहा. अयुक् त (केंरीय) सकडल, जिमला

217

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक् त (ऄृील-3), गुप ग्राम

218

कायाडलय अयकर अयुक् त (ऄृील-5), लुजधयाना

[फा. सं. इ-30018/1/2024- डीडीओएल]

प्रीजत सेलारे, ईृ जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1457.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose

of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Borad

Direct Taxes Department of revenue where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

S.No.

Name of Office

1

O/o The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

2

O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

3

O/o The Jt./Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

4

O/o The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Nangal

5

O/o The Income Tax Officer & DDO, Ropar

6

O/o The Jt./Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Range, Shimla

7

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Shimla (H.P.)

8

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Bilaspur (H.P.)

9

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Palampur (H.P.)

10

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Mandi (H.P.)

11

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Parwanoo (H.P.)

12

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Dharamshala (H.P.)

13

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Rampur (H.P.)

14

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Hamirpur (H.P.)

15

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Dalhousie (H.P.)

16

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Kullu (H.P.)

17

O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward, Nurpur (H.P.)

18

O/o The Income Tax Office, Una (H.P.)

19

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Admn. & TPS), Chandigarh

20

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(ITAT), Chandigarh

5580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Chandigarh

22

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Chandigarh

23

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)-1, Chandigarh

24

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Range, Chandigarh

25

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Range, Ludhiana

26

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)-2, Chandigarh

27

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS) Range Panchkula

28

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Range, Gurugram

29

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) Chandigarh

30

O/o The Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) Range-1, Chandigarh

31

O/o The Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) Range-2, Chandigarh

32

O/o The Director of Income Tax(I&CI), Chandigarh

33

O/o The Addl. Director of Income Tax(I&CI), Chandigarh

34

O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

35

O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

36

O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Panchkula

37

O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

38

O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Rohtak

39

O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Karnal

40

O/o The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kaithal

41

O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Hisar

42

O/o The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Fatehabad

43

O/o The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Charkhidadri

44

O/o The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind

45

O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

46

O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1 Faridabad

47

O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Gurugram

48

O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Gurugram

49

O/o The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narnaul

50

O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Office, Ludhiana

51

O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(V.U)-1 Office, Ludhiana

52

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(V.U)-1(1), Ludhiana

53

O/o The Income Tax Officer(V.U.)-1.1.3, Anantnag

54

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(V.U)-1(2), Sirhind

55

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(V.U)-1(3), Chandigarh

56

O/o The Income Tax Officer(V.U.)-1.3.5, SunderNagar

57

O/o The Income Tax Officer(V.U.)-1.3.6, Baddi

58

O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1, Ludhiana

59

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1(1),Ludhiana

60

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(2), Ludhiana

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5581

61

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1(3), Ludhiana

62

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1(4), Ludhiana

63

O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1, Jalandhar

64

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1(1), Jalandhar

65

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1(2),Jalandhar

66

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1(3), Jalandhar at Phagwara,

67

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(AU)-1(4), Jalandhar at Hoshiarpur,

68

O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1, Amritsar

69

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(1), Amritsar

70

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(2), Amritsar

71

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(3), Amritsar

72

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(4), Amritsar

73

O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1, Bathinda

74

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(1), Bathinda,

75

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(2) Bathinda at Firozpur

76

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1.2.3, Jeera

77

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(3), Bathinda at Moga,

78

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1.3.4, Jagraon

79

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1.3.5, Malerkotla

80

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1.3.6, Kapurthala

81

O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U)-1(4), Bhatinda at Sangrur,

82

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1.4.2, Barnala

83

O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U.)-1, Jammu

84

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U.)-1(1), Jammu,

85

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U.)-1(2), Jammu at Pathankot,

86

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U.)-1(3), Jammu at Ludhiana,

87

O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax(A.U.)-1(4), Jammu at Khanna

88

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1(2)(4), Jammu at Rajouri,

89

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1(2)(5), Jammu at Samba,

90

O/o The Income Tax Officer(A.U.)-1(2)(6), Jammu at Baramulla,

91

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1, Ludhiana

92

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-2,Ludhiana

93

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-3, Ludhiana

94

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-4, Ludhiana

95

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1, Hissar

96

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1,Bathinda

97

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1, Karnal

98

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1, Rohtak

99

O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1, Faridabad

100 O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1, Panchkula

5582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

101 O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-1, Amritsar

102 O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Unit-2, Amritsar

103 O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)Unit-1, Gurugram

104 O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)Unit-2, Gurugram

105 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income tax, Shimla

106 O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1, Hisar

107 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(1), Hisar at Bhiwani

108 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(2), Hisar at Sirsa

109 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(3), Hisar at Rewari

110 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(4), Hisar at Gurugram

111 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-1, Jalandhar

112 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-2, Jalandhar

113 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-1, Patiala

114 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-1, Chandigarh

115 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-2, Chandigarh

116 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-1, Shimla at Solan

117 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-1, Palampur

118 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-1, Jammu

119 O/o The Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) (Unit)-1, Srinagar

120 O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(RU)-1, Chandigarh

121 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner Income Tax (RU)-1(1), Chandigarh

122 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner Income Tax (RU)-1(2), Chandigarh

123 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner Income Tax (RU)-1(3), Chandigarh

124 O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1, Karnal

125 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(1), karnal at Sonepat

126 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(2), Karnal at Kurukshetra

127 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(3), Karnal at Yamuna Nagar

128 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(4), Karnal at Faridabad

129 O/o The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1, Shimla

130 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(1), Shimla

131 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(2), Shimla at Mandi

132 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(3), Shimla at Palampur

133 O/o The Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income-tax(AU)-1(4), Shimla at Mohali

134 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, VU-1, Gurugram

135 O/o The Addl Commissioner of Income Tax, VU-1(1), Gurugram

136 O/o The Addl Commissioner of Income Tax, VU-1(2), Gurugram at Panipat

137 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, VU-1(3), Gurugram at Ambala

138 O/o The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar

139 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

140 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5583

141 O/o The Income Tax Office Ward-1, Batala

142 O/o The Income Tax Office Ward, Gurdaspur

143 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Tarantaran

144 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bathinda

145 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Faridkot

146 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1(4), Mansa

147 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-2(3), Abohar

148 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-2(2), Muktsar

149 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

150 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Jalandhar

151 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Jalandhar

152 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Hoshiarpur

153 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Dashua

154 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Nawashahar

155 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Fagwada

156 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Kapurthala

157 O/o The Income Tax Officer, Nakodar

158 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

159 O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Ludhiana

160 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Moga

161 O/o The Income Tax Office, Jagrao

162 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-3, khanna

163 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Malerkotla

164 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Khanna

165 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Ludhiana

166 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

167 O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Patiala

168 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1 & 2 Mandi Gobindgarh

169 O/o The Income Tax Office Ward-1, Sangrur

170 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward – Sunam

171 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward – Nabha

172 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward – Barnala

173 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward - Rajpura

174 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

175 O/o The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Jammu

176 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-1(4), Kathua

177 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward-2(5), Katra

178 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Srinagar

179 O/o The Income Tax Office, Ward Udhampur

180 O/o The Director General of Income Tax (Inv.),Chandigarh

5584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

181 O/o The Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.),Chandigarh

182 O/o The Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.),Chandigarh

183 O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (B.P.U.), Chandigarh

184 O/o The Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Fridabad

185 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Panipat

186 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Ambala

187 O/o The Joint/Addl. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Gurugram

188 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Rohtak

189 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Parwanoo

190 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Shimla

191 O/o The Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Ludhiana

192 O/o The Joint/Addl. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Ludhiana

193 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Mohali

194 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Patiala

195 O/o The Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.) (FAIU), Ludhiana

196 O/o The Joint Director of Income Tax (BPU), Ludhiana

197 O/o The Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Jalandhar

198 O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Bathinda

199 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Amritsar

200 O/o The Additional/Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.),Jammu

201 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-1, Srinagar

202 O/o The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-2, Srinagar

203 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central.), Ludhiana

204 O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Central.) Range, Ludhiana

205 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.)-, Patiala

206 O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Central.) Range, Jalandhar

207 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.), Amritsar

208 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.), Jammu

209 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.), Srinagar

210 O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central.), Gurugram

211 O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Range Gurugram

212 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.)-1, Faridabad

213 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.)-2, Faridabad

214 O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Central.) Range, Chandigarh

215 O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.), Karnal

216 O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle.)- Shimla,

217 O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appaeal-3), Gurugram

218 O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appaeal-5), Ludhiana

[F. No. E-30018/1/2024-DDOL]

PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5585

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत तथा ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 2 मइ, 2025

का.अ. 1458. —केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए तेलंगाना रा्य

सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एमएस.सं. 35, ददनांक 27.03.2025, गृह (जविेष) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत

से केंरीय ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो, भ्रष्टाचार जनरोधक िाखा, हजदराबाद को प्राप्त स्रोत सूचना के अधार ृर संजवदाकार मेससड संध्या

कंस्ट्रक्िन, दजक्षण मध्य रेलवे, जसकंदराबाद के ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों और ऄज्ञात गजर-सरकारी व्यजक्तयों के जवप द्ध गैंग के

सदस्ट्यों की ईृजस्ट्थजत/ तकनीकी रजजस्ट्टर में समान नामों का ईल्लेख करते ुएए ऄजभकजथत प ृ से गंभीर ऄजनयजमतताएं

कर 03 ऄलग-ऄलग गैंग के जलए भुगतान प्राप्त करने के संबध में काररत ऄृराध, ऄन्य संचयी ऄृराधों और जांच/ऄन्वेषण

के दौरान सामने अने वाले दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों) का केंरीय ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा ऄजधसूजचत धाराओं और भ्रष्टाचार

जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केन्रीय ऄजधजनयम 49), (2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धाराओं के ऄन्तगडत

जांच/ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सभी सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त तेलंगाना रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/28/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2025

S.O. 1458.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27.03.2025, Home (Special)

Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to all the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

in the whole of the State of Telangana for conducting Enquiry/Investigation alleging commission of serious gross

irregularities in the matter of claiming payments against 03 different gangs, mentioning common names in the

attendance/ technical register of the gang members on a source information received by CBI, ACB, Hyderabad,

against Contractor M/s. Sandhya Constructions, unknown public servants of South Central Railway, Secunderabad&

unknown private persons under sections notified for investigation by CBI and sections of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988(Central Act No.49 of 1988), (as amended in 2018), other cumulative offences and any other

offence(s) that may come to light during Enquiry/Investigation.

[F. No. 228/28/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 30 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1459.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5

की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्तिजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए ृुजलस ऄधीक्षक एवं िाखा प्रमुख, केन्रीय

ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो, भ्रष्टाचारजनरोधक िाखा, धनबाद के ददनांक 06.06.2025 के ृत्र सं्‍या–275/सीओ-06/2025 द्वारा

दकए गए ऄनुरोध ृर ऄजधसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.अइ.-418/2025-3605/रांची, ददनांक 18.06.2025, गृह,

कारागार एवं अृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी झारखंड रा्य सरकार की सम्मजत से श्री ऄजभषेक कमल ईफड

ऄजविेक कमल, जनदेिक, अर.एस.इ.टी.अइ, बैंक ऑफ आंजडया, कल्याणडीह, जगररडीह, झारखंड (बैंक ऑफ आंजडया के

5586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

स्ट्केल-III ऄजधकारी) के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (वषड 2018 में यथा संिोजधत) की धारा 7 धाराके

ऄंतगडत दंडनीय ऄृराधों के जलए ददनांक 20.06.2025 को ृंजीकृत मामला अरसी 07(A)/2025-डी तथा ऐसे एकया

ईससे ऄजधक ऄृराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में

दकएगएयाईन्हीतथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकन्हीं ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों) सजहत आस मामले के ऄन्वेषण के दौरान प्रकाि में अने वाले

दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ृंजीकरण एवं ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और

क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (ददनांक 20.06.2025 से कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त झारखंड रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/50/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2025

S.O. 1459.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-418/2025-3605/Ranchi, dated

18.06.2025, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made via letter number 275/CO-

06/2025, dated 06.06.2025 of S.P. &Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction to the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole state of Jharkhand (ex post

factow.e.f.20.06.2025) for registration and investigation in RC07(A)/2025-D registered on 20.06.2025against Shri

Abhishek Kamal @ Avishek Kamal, Director, R.S.E.T.I, Bank of India, Kalyandih, Giridih, Jharkhand, (Scale-III

Officer of Bank of India) for the offences punishable under section 7of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as

amended in 2018) and any other offence that may come to light during investigation of this case, including any

attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more such offences and/or any other

offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/50/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 30 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1460.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की धारा 5

की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए ृुजलस ऄधीक्षक एवं िाखा प्रमुख, केन्रीय

ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो, भ्रष्टाचार जनरोधक िाखा, धनबाद के ददनांक 05.06.2025 के ृत्र सं्‍या 273/सीओ-05/2025 द्वारा

दकए गए ऄनुरोध ृर ऄजधसूचना ज्ञाृनसं.-10/सी.बी.अइ.-417/2025-3604/रांची, ददनांक 18.06.2025, गृह,

कारागार एवं अृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी झारखंड रा्य सरकार की सम्मजत से श्री धीरज जनषाद,

जलजृक, बस्ट्ताकोला कोजलयरी, एररया-IX, बीसीसीएल, धनबाद के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988

(2018 मेंयथासंिोजधत) की धारा 7 के ऄंतगडत दंडनीय ऄृराधों के जलए ददनांक 18.06.2025 को ृंजीकृत अरसी

06(ए)/2025-डी तथा ऐसे एक या ईससे ऄजधक ऄृराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र

एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों) सजहत आस मामले के ऄन्वेषण

के दौरान सामने अनेवाले दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध का ृंजीकरण एवं ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के

सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (ददनांक 18.06.2025 से कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त झारखंड रा्य

में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/51/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th July, 2025

S.O. 1460.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide NotificationMemo No.-10/C.B.I.-417/2025-3604/Ranchi, dated 18.06.2025,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5587

Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Departmentupon request made via letter number 273/CO-05/2025,

dated 05.06.2025 ofS.P. &Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to the

members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole state of Jharkhand (ex post facto w.e.f. 18.06.2025)

for registration and investigation in RC06(A)/2025-D registered on 18.06.2025against ShriDheeraj Nishad, Clerk,

Bastacolla Colliery, Area-IX, BCCL, Dhanbad for the offences punishable under section 7of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and any other offence that may come to light during investigation of

this case, including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more such

offences and/or any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same

facts.

[F. No. 228/51/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 1 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1461.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए ऄजधसूचना

सं. जी.ओ.(2डी.) सं. 82 ददनांक 20.03.2025, गृह (नागररकता) जवभागएवं संिोजधत ऄजधसूचना

सं्‍या. जी.ओ.(2डी).सं. 177, ददनांक 23.06.2025 गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तजमलनाडु रा्य

सरकार की सम्मजत से मेससड ृरमेश्वर मंगलम स्ट्टील्स (प्राआवेट) जलजमटेडतथा आसके जनदेिकों नामतः श्री ृी. एस.

कृ्‍णमूर्मत (प्रबंध जनदेिक), श्रीमती ृी. के. वददवम्बल (जनदेिक), श्री ृी. के. श्रीजनवासन (जनदेिक), श्रीमती ृी. एस.

हसधुजा (जनदेिक) के जवरुध्द भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 (1860 का केन्रीय ऄजधजनयम 45) की धारा 120-बी

सृर त धारा 420, 467, 468 और 471 के ऄंतगडत एक मामलें का ृंजीकृत करने हेतु ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के

सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/18/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2025

S.O. 1461.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issuedvide Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.82, dated 20.03.2025 Home

(Citizenship) Department and Amendment Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.177, dated 23.06.2025 Home (Citizenship)

Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the

whole of the State of Tamil Nadu to register a case against Messrs. Parameswara Mangalam Steels (Pvt) Ltd. and its

Directors, namely, Shri P. S. Krishnamurthy (Managing Director), Smt. P. K. Vadivambal (Director), Shri P. K.

Srinivasan (Director), Smt. P. S. Sindhuja (Director) under section 120-B read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471

of the India Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860).

[F. No. 228/18/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 1 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1462.—केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए ऄजधसूचना सं.

जी.ओ.(2डी.) सं. 101, ददनांक 08.04.2025, गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग और संिोजधत ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.(2डी)

सं.170 ददनांक 13.06.2025, गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारीतजमलनाडु रा्य सरकार की सम्मजत से

श्री जी.मीनाक्षी नाथ जृल्लइ, लेखा आकाइ ऄजधकारी, दजक्षण ऄंचलसंस्ट्कृजत केंर, तंजावुर और ईनके संबंधी टीवीएल.

5588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

तायम्माल, जी.िजक्तवेल, डी.सुबा, के.सुबाजसनी जृल्लइ और जी.सुब्रमण्यम जृल्लइ के जवप द्ध भारतीय न्याय

संजहता, 2023 (2023 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 45) की धारा 61(2) सृर त धाराएं316(5), 318(4) और 336(3) और

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 49) (वषड 2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 13(2)

सृर त धारा 13(1)(ए) के ऄंतगडत जनयजमत मामला दजड करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की

िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/32/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2025

S.O. 1462.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

of the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(2D) No.101 dated 08.04.2025, Home

(Citizenship) Department and Amendment Notification No. G.O.(2D) No.170 dated 13.06.2025, Home

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

Establishment in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu to register a regular case against Shri G.Meenakshi Natha

Pillai, Accounts Unit Officer, South Zone Culture Centre, Thanjavur and his relatives Tvl. Thayammal,

G.Sakthivel, D.Suba, K.Subasini Pillai and G.Subramania Pillai under section 61(2) read with sections 316(5),

318(4) and 336(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Central Act 45 of 2023) and section 13(2) read with

section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) (as amended in 2018).

[F. No. 228/32/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1463. —केंरीय सरकार ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए ऄजधसूचनासं.

जी.ओ.(2डी).सं.87,

ददनांक

24.03.2025

गृह

(नागररकता)

जवभाग

तथा

संिोजधत

ऄजधसूचना

सं. जी.ओ.(2डी).सं.197, ददनांक 07.07.2025 गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तजमलनाडु रा्य सरकार

की सम्मजत से जवजभन्न अयातकों से 5.49 कारोड़ प ृए का ऄनुजचत लाभ की मांग करने और स्ट्वीकार करने तथा आसके

साथ-साथ जालसाजी कर 27 अयातकों से संबंजधत 36 इृीसीजी लाइसेंसों को बंद कर 35.54 करोड़ रुृये (लगभग)

के राजस्ट्व की हाजन ृुएुँचाने के जलए भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 (1860 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 45) की धारा 120बी

सृर त धाराएुँ 420, 406, 468, 419 और 471 तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केंरीय

ऄजधजनयम 49) (2018 में यथा संिोजधत) की धाराएुँ 7, 8, 9, 10 के ऄंतगडत काररत ऄृराधोंके जलए जनम्नजलजखत के

जवरुद्ध जाुँच/ऄन्वेषण का संचालन करने के जलएददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार

का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु रा्य में करती हज:-

1. श्री संदीृ कुमार चोरजसया, मूल्यांकनकताड (जनलंबन के ऄधीन), अयात अयुक्तालय, चेन्नइ सीमा िुल्क क्षेत्र, चेन्नइ।

2. श्री सुभाष, डाटा एंरी ऑृरेटर (संजवदा अधार ृर), चेन्नइ सीमा िुल्क क्षेत्र, चेन्नइ।

3. मजससड एयरफ्लो आदिृमेंट्स आंजडया प्राआवेट जलजमटेड (आसके जनदेिक श्री दजक्षणामूर्मत मजणकंडन द्वारा प्रजतजनजधत्व)

नंबर 9, चेजल्लयाम्मन कोआल स्ट्रीट, कीलकट्टलाइ , चेन्नइ , कांचीृुरम, तजमलनाडु -600 117

4. मजससड सूयाड आदिृमेंट्स, अइ इ कोड- 3205002172, एसएफ नंबर 14, ऄजतृालयम रोड, जचन्नावेदमृट्टी, गणृजत

ृोस्ट्ट, कोयंबटूर, तजमलनाडु 641 049 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5589

5. मजससड ृीृीएम जप्रसीजन आंजीजनयठरग, अइइ कोड-0405027753, (श्री एस.ृाथीबन द्वारा प्रजतजनजधत्व),

प्लॉट नंबर 4, ृोजन्नयम्मन नगर, ऄयानंबक्कम, चेन्नइ, जतरुवल्लुर, तजमलनाडु 600 095

6. मजससड सरवना ग्लोबल एनजी जलजमटेड, अइइ कोड-0403012228, (श्री ऄजीत ृी चल्लानी द्वारा प्रजतजनजधत्व),

नंबर 15, न्यू जगरी रोड, टी. नगर, चेन्नइ, तजमलनाडु 600 017

7. मजससड श्री कार्मतकेय मॉडनड राआस जमल, अइ इ कोड-3210006474, 3, कुड्डाल्लूर मेन रोड, तुलाकनुर, कल्लानाथम

ृोस्ट्ट, अटूर तालुक, सेलम जजला, तजमलनाडु 636 141 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध

8. मजससड ऄृेरेल ककगडम प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, अइ इ कोड-0412009013, 117, चेट्टीचावडी रोड, गोरीमेडु, सेलम,

तजमलनाडु 636 008 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध

9. मजससड फ़नडजहल मल्टीृल आंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. जलजमटेड, अइ इ कोड-0412015218, (श्री सुकुमार सेल्वामजण द्वारा

प्रजतजनजधत्व), 4/231-ए, 6वीं स्ट्रीट, एमजीअर सालइ, ृालवक्कम, चेन्नइ, तजमलनाडु 600 041

10. मजससड यासीन होटल्स प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, अइ इ कोड-3502002215, नंबर 4, रॉयल कोटड, वेस्ट्ट वेली स्ट्रीट, मदुरज,

तजमलनाडु - 625 001 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

11. मजससड वेररवेल जमल्स, अइ इ कोड-3214013891, 10-ए/2 ृहली मंजजल, ृोनमुथु नगर, तीसरी स्ट्रीट, नल्लूर,

कंगायम रोड, जतरुृुर, तजमलनाडु 641 606 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

12. मजससड अर ए टेक्सटाआल्स प्रोसेस प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, अइ इ कोड-329802469443, मेट्टुृालयम एक्सटेंिन,

ृी.एन रोड, जतरुृुर, तजमलनाडु 641 602 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

13. मजससड जी एन स्ट्वामी एम्ब्रॉयडरी, अइ इ कोड-0405022964, 3/4, वेदाचलम स्ट्रीट, नारायणन नगर,

ओरागदम, ऄंबाटूर, चेन्नइ, तजमलनाडु 600 053 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

14. मजससड एक्सॉन टेक्नॉलोजजस, अइ इ कोड-0407018026 एस.नं. 75/1ए1, बाइृास रोड, सेन्नेरकुप्ृम, चेन्नइ,

तजमलनाडु - 600 056 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

15. मजससड येती रेदिजरेिन, अइ इ कोड-7606004418, ृोनमल्ली हाइ रोड, हसधी कॉलेज वेल्लप्ृनचावडी, चेन्नइ,

तजमलनाडु 600 077 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

16. मजससड मारुजत हप्रटर, अइ इ कोड-3208013990, 4, ऄरुमुगम, लेअईट, ऄन्ना नगर, ृीलामेडु, कोयंबटूर,

तजमलनाडु - 641004 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

17. मजससड रीजेंट जडफेंस एंड आंजी. (श्री एल. सेकर द्वारा प्रजतजनजधत्व), 726, के. साथनूर रोड, जतरुजचराृल्ली,

तजमलनाडु 620 021 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

18. मजससड ृीएसएम राआस आंडस्ट्री, अइ इ कोड-0904002276, एस एन 278/1/ए अइ, साईथराजुृालेम रोड,

ऄल्लीृुरम, नेल्लोर, एसृीएसअर नेल्लोर अंध्र प्रदेि 524 002 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

19. मजससड श्री सत्य साईं रॉ एंड बॉआल्ड राआस जमल, अइ इ कोड- 0904003124, 277-1, साईथराजुृालम रोड,

ऄल्लीृुरम, नेल्लोर, एसृीएसअर नेल्लोर, अंध्र प्रदेि 524 002 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

20. मजससड श्री लक्ष्मी जवग्नेश्वरा राआस आंडस्ट्रीज, अइ इ कोड-0904003574, सवे नं.258, ृेड्डाचेरुकुरु गांव, नेल्लोर

ग्रामीण मंडल, नेल्लोर, एसृीएसअर नेल्लोर, अंध्र प्रदेि 524 002 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

5590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21. मजससड प्रेमा साइ रॉ एंड बॉआल्ड राआस जमल, अइ इ कोड-0907012655, सवे नं.243, ृेड्डा चेरुकुरु गांव, नेल्लोर

ग्रामीण मंडल, नेल्लोर, एसृीएसअर नेल्लोर, अंध्र प्रदेि-524 002 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

22. मजससड रेप्को माआन्स एंड जमनरल्स प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, अइ इ कोड-0912014725, ृुराना नंबर 25-1,251/505,

नया नंबर 25-1-608, तीसरा तल, स्ट्वेता टावसड, ए.के. नगर, दरगाजमट्टा, नेल्लोर जजला, एसृीएसअर नेल्लोर, अंध्र

प्रदेि 524 004 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

23. मजससड ऄंजबका फूड आंडस्ट्रीज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, अइइ कोड-0909013250, प्लॉट नंबर 56 और 57,

टीएसअइअइसी, ऑटो स्ट्टैंड के समीृ, कट्टेडन, अर.अर. जजला (दजक्षण), हजदराबाद, तेलंगाना -500 077 और आसके

ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

24. मजससड ृेंटाप्लस हप्रटर प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, अइ इ कोड-0711037400, एसवाइ. नं. 1/2, डी ग्रुृ लेअईट के समीृ,

हलगधीरनाहल्ली गांव, बेंगलुरु ग्रामीण, कनाडटक 560 091 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

25. मजससड ृावर टेक, अइ इ कोड-706026560, नंबर 24, 5 वां मेन, ऄरहवद मोटसड के ृीछे, यूको बैंक के सामने, थडड

फेज, ृीन्या, बेंगलुरु 58, कनाडटक और ईसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

26. मजससड प्रणव आंटरनेिनल जनट वेयर, अइ इ कोड-0708005578, 260ए, के अइ ए बी औद्योजगक क्षेत्र सोमन

ऄकल्ली, मद्दुर, मंडगा, जजला, मद्दुर, कनाडटक 571 428 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

27. मजससड जय लक्ष्मी ग्रेनाआट्स, अइ इ कोड-1312009438, 17-सी, फतेहृुरा, ईदयृुर, राजस्ट्थान 313 001 और

आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

28. मजससड वेंकटेश्वर एंटरप्राआजेज, अइ इ कोड-1312001780, (श्री राजेि जजोददया द्वारा प्रजतजनजधत्व) 4, फतेहृुरा,

ईदयृुर, राजस्ट्थान- 313 001 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

29. मजससड ऊषभदेव ग्रीन माबडल, अइ इ कोड-1312015756, मंददर मागड, ृगजलयाजी रोड, ऊषभदेव, तेहसील

खेरवाड़ा, जजला ईदयृुर, राजस्ट्थान-313001 और आसके ऄज्ञात प्रजतजनजध।

[फा. सं. 228/53/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1463.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

of the State Government of Tamil Nadu issued vide Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.87, Dated 24.03.2025 Home

(Citizenship) Department and Amendment Notification No. G.O.(2D).No. 197, Dated 07.07.2025 Home

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

Establishment in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu to conduct an enquiry/investigation against the following

for the offences under section 120B read with sections 420, 406, 468, 419 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(Central Act 45 of 1860) and sections 7, 8, 9, 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988)

(as amended in 2018) for the demand and acceptance of undue advantage of Rs. 5.49 crores from various importers

and further caused a revenue loss of Rs.35.54 crores (approximately) by fraudulently closing 36 EPCG licences

pertaining to 27 importers:-

1.

Shri Sandeep Kumar Chorasiya, Appraiser (under suspension), Import Commissionerate, Chennai Customs

Zone, Chennai.

2.

Shri Subash, Data Entry Operator (on contract basis), Chennai Customs Zone, Chennai.

3.

M/s. Airflow Equipments India Private Limited (represented by its Director Shri Dakshinamoorthy

Manikandan) No. 9, ChelliammanKoil Street, Keelkattalai, Chennai, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu – 600 117.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5591

4.

M/s. Suriya Equipments, IE Code- 3205002172, SF No. 14, Athipalayam Road, Chinnavedampatti,

Ganapathy Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu – 641 049 and its unknown representatives.

5.

M/s. PPM Precision Engineering, IE Code-0405027753, (Represented by Shri S. Parthiban), Plot No. 4,

Ponniamman Nagar, Ayanambakkam, Chennai, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 095.

6.

M/s. Saravana Global Energy Ltd, IE Code-0403012228, (Represented By Shri Ajit P Challani), No. 15,

New Giri Road, T. Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 017.

7.

M/s. Sri Karthikeya Modern Rice Mill, IE Code-3210006474, 3, Cuddalore Main Road, Thulakanur,

Kallanatham Post, Attur Taluk, Salem District, Tamil Nadu - 636 141 and its unknown representatives.

8.

M/s. Apparel Kingdom Pvt Ltd, IE Code-0412009013, 117, Chettichavadi Road, Gorimedu, Salem,

Tamil Nadu - 636 008 and its unknown representatives.

9.

M/s. Fernhill Multiple Industries Pvt. Ltd, IE Code-0412015218, (Represented By Shri Sukumar

Selvamani), 4/231-A, 6th Street, MGRSalai, Palavakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600041.

10.

M/s. Yasin Hotels Pvt. Ltd, IE Code-3502002215, No.4, Royal Court, West Veli Street, Madurai, Tamil

Nadu - 625 001 and its unknown representatives.

11.

M/s. Vetrivel Mills, IE Code-3214013891, 10-A/2 1st Floor, Ponmuthu Nagar, 3rd Street, Nallur,

Kangayam Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu - 641 606 and its unknown representatives.

12.

M/s. RA Textiles Process Pvt Ltd, IE Code-329802469443, Mettupalayam Extension, P.N Read, Tirupur,

Tamil Nadu - 641 602 and its unknown representatives.

13.

M/s. GN Swamy Embroidery, IE Code-0405022964, 3/4, Vedhachalam Street, Narayanan Nagar,

Oragadam, Ambattur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 053 and its unknown representatives.

14.

M/s. Axon Technologies, IE Code-0407018026 - S.No. 75/1a1, Byepass Road, Sennerkuppam, Chennai,

Tamil Nadu - 600 056 and its unknown representatives.

15.

M/s. Yeti Refrigeration, IE Code-7606004418, Poonamllee High Road, Sindhi College Vellappanchavadi,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 077 and its unknown representatives.

16.

M/s. Maruthi Printer, IE Code-3208013990, 4, Arumugam, Layout, Anna Nagar, Peelamedu, Coimbatore,

Tamil Nadu - 641 004 and its unknown representatives.

17.

M/s. Regent Defense&Engg. (Represented By Shri L. Sekar), 726, K. Sathanoor Road, Tiruchirappalli,

Tamil Nadu - 620 021 and its unknown representatives.

18.

M/s. PSM Rice Industry, IE Code-0904002276, SN 278/1/Ai, Southrajupalem Road, Allipuram, Nellore,

SPSR Nellore Andhra Pradesh - 524 002 and its unknown representatives.

19.

M/s. Sree Satya Sai Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, IE Code- 0904003124, 277-1, Southrajupalem Road,

Allipuram, Nellore, SPSR Nellore, Andhra Pradesh - 524 002 and its unknown representatives.

20.

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Vigneswara Rice Industries, IE Code-0904003574, Survey No.258, Peddacherukuru

Village, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore, Andhra Pradesh 524 002 and its unknown

representatives.

21.

M/s. Prema Sai Raw & Boiled Rice Mill, IE Code-0907012655, Survey No.243, PeddaCherukuru Village,

Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore, Andhra Pradesh - 524 002 and its unknown representatives.

22.

M/s. Repco Mines & Minerals Pvt. Ltd, IE Code-0912014725, Old No.25-1,251/505, New No.25-1-608, 3rd

Floor, Swetha Towers, A. K. Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore District, SPSR Nellore, Andhra Pradesh - 524 004

and its unknown representatives.

23.

M/s. Ambika Food Industries Pvt. Ltd, IE Code-0909013250, Plot No. 56 & 57, TSIIC, Near Auto Stand,

Kattedan, R.R. District (South), Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 077 and its unknown representatives.

24.

M/s. Pentaplus Printer Pvt. Ltd, IE Code-0711037400, Sy. No.1/2, Near D Group Layout,

Lingadheeranahalli Village, Bengaluru Rural, Karnataka - 560 091 and its unknown representatives.

25.

M/s. Power Tech, IE Code-706026560, No.24, 5th Main, Behind, Arvind Motors, Opp. UCO Bank, 3rd

Phase, Peenya, Bangalore 58, Karnataka and its unknown representatives.

26.

M/s. Pranav International Knit Wear, IE Code-0708005578, 260A, KIAB Industrial Area Soman Akalli,

Maddur, Mandga, District, Maddur, Karnataka - 571 428 and its unknown representatives.

27.

M/s. Jai Laxmi Granites, IE Code-1312009438, 17-C, Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313 001 and its

unknown representatives.

28.

M/s. Venkateshwar Enterprises, IE Code-1312001780, (Represented by Shri Rajesh Jajodia) 4, Fatehpura,

Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313 001 and its unknown representatives.

5592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

29.

M/s. Rishabdeo Green Marble, IE Code-1312015756, Mandir Marg, Pagliyaji Road, Rishabdeo, The

Kherwara, District Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313 001 and its unknown representatives.

[F. No. 228/53/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1464. —केंरीय सरकार,ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए महाराष्ट्र रा्य

के अदेि सं. एमअइएस-0420/सीअर 55/एसृीएल.1ए ददनांक 06.02.2024, गृह जवभाग, मुंबइ तथा िुजद्धृत्र

ददनांक 22.05.2025 के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से तीन व्यजक्तयों नामतः (1) श्री सुिील जगरी महाराज, (2)

श्री जचकने महाराज कल्ृरुक्षजगरी एवं (3) श्री नीलेि तेलगड़े, जो कार सं. एमएच-02-डीडब्ल्यू-6729 से सूरत जा रहे

थे, ृर गडहचचले गाुँव के ृास, चौकीृाड़ा के समीृ, ृालघर में हमला करने, ईक्त घटना में ईृरवी भीड़ ने ईृयुडक्त

तीनों ृीजड़तों ृर हमला दकया और जान से मार ददया तथा ईृरवी भीड़ ने सहायक ृुजलस जनरीक्षक (एृीअइ) श्री

काले एवं ऄन्य ृुजलस कर्ममयों ृर लार यों और ऄन्य हजथयारों से हमला दकया तथा मारने की कोजिि की एवं हमले के

दौरान तीन ृुजलस कर्ममयों को चोटें अईं, के संबंध मेंकासा थाने में ृंजीकृत तीन ऄृराधों: (1) भारतीय दंड संजहता की

धारा 307, 353, 332, 333, 341, 427, 147, 148, 149 सृर त लोक संृजत्त नुकसान जनवारण

ऄजधजनयम, 1984 की धारा 3, 5 एवं दंड जवजध संिोधन ऄजधजनयम की धारा 7 के ऄंतगडत सी.अर.सं. 76/2020, (2)

भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 302, 120 (बी), 427, 147, 148, 149 के ऄंतगडत सी.अर.सं. 77/2020 और (3)

भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 307, 353, 332, 333, 143, 147, 148, 149 के ऄंतगडत सी.अर.सं. 78/2020 तथा

ईृयुडक्त ऄृराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों),दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं ईसी संव्यवहार में

दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध ऄथवा ऄृराधों केसंबंध में ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष

ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त महाराष्ट्र रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/54/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1464.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

of the State Government ofMaharashtra, issued vide Order No. MIS-0420/CR 55/Spl.1A dated 06.02.2024, Home

Department, Mumbai and Corrigendum dated 22.05.2025,hereby extends the powers andjurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Maharashtrafor investigationin respect of

the three criminal offences registered at Kasa police station : (1) vide C.R.No. 76/2020 U/s 307, 353, 332, 333,

341, 427, 147, 148, 149 of IPC r/w U/s 3, 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 & U/s 7 of

the Criminal law amendment Act, (2) C.R.No. 77/2020 U/s 302, 120 (B), 427, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and (3)

C.R.No. 78/2020,U/s 307, 353, 332, 333, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC for assaulting threepersons namely (1) Shri

SushilGiriMaharaj, (2) Shri ChikneMaharajKalprukshgiriand (3) Shri NileshTelgade who were travelling by Car

No.MH-02-DW-6729 going to Surat,near Gadchinchale village, near Chaukipada, Palghar. The mob assaulted and

lynched the above mentioned three victims to death and the mob assaulted and tried to kill API Shri Kale and other

Policemenby using Lathis and other weapons and three policemen suffered injuries during the ordeal and any other

offence(s), attempt, abetment and conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned offences and

any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transactions or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/54/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1465.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए केरल रा् य

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5593

सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ. (एमएस.) सं. 106/2025/गृह, ददनांक 12.06.2025, गृह (एम) जवभाग,

जतरुवनंतृुरम (एस.अर.ओ. सं्‍या- 676/2025) के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से मेससड अरअर ऄराफा गोल्ड,

साझेदारी फमड, श्री ररयाज, श्री रफीक, साझेदारगण, श्री के.ऄब्दुल सलाम, श्रीमती रेमीला बीवी, गारंटीकताडगण, और

ऄज्ञात ऄन्य, यदद कोइ हो, के जवरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 (वषड 1860 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 45) की

धाराएुँ 120बी, 406 और 420 के ऄंतगडत दंडनीय काररत ऄजभकजथत ऄृराधों जो ईक्त ऄजधजनयम के तहत दंडनीय हैं

और आस मामले के संदभड में, ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न काररत दकन्हीं ऄन्य ऄृराधों का

ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल

रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/55/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1465.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

of the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No.G.O.(Ms.) No. 106/2025/HOME, dated

12.06.2025, Home (M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O. No. 676/2025),hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole State of Kerala for the

investigation of the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 120B, 406 and 420of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) against M/s RR Arafa Gold, Partnership Firm, Shri Riyas, Shri Rafeeq,

Partners, Shri K. Abdul Salam, Smt. Remeela Beevi, Guarantors, and unknown others, if any, for commission of

offences punishable under the said Acts and any other offences committed in the course of transaction arising out

of the same fact, in regard to this case, within the whole State of Kerala.

[F. No. 228/55/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 12 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1466.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए केरल रा् य

सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ. (एमएस.) सं. 108/2025/गृह, ददनांक 12.06.2025, गृह (एम) जवभाग,

जतरुवनंतृुरम (एस.अर.ओ. सं्‍या- 673/2025) के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से मेससड जोया गोल्ड जजसका

प्रजतजनजधत्व आसके प्रोप्राआटर श्रीमती िजना िम्सुद्दीन, श्रीमती िजना िम्सुद्दीन, प्रोप्राआटर, श्री के.ऄब्दुल सलाम, करते

हैं। श्रीमती रेमीला बीवी, श्री रमीज़, श्रीमती िजजनी, श्री आिाक एम, श्री ऄंज़ बदरुद्दीन, कुमारी ऄजूमी बदरुद्दीन,

श्रीमती मुमताज़ बेगम, श्री िाुएल हामीद, श्री ररयाज़ मॉन, श्री िाजजल खान, श्रीमती िकीला बेगम, गारंटीकताडगण,

और ऄज्ञात ऄन्य, यदद कोइ हों, के जवरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 (वषड 1860 का केंरीय ऄजधजनयम 45) की

धाराएुँ 120बी, 406 और 420 के ऄंतगडत दंडनीय काररत ऄजभकजथत ऄृराधों, जो ईक्त ऄजधजनयमों के तहत दंडनीय

हैं और आस मामले के संदभड में, ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न काररत दकन्हीं ऄन्य ऄृराधों का

ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल

रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/56/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025

S.O. 1466.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

of the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No.G.O.(Ms.) No. 108/2025/HOME, dated

5594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12.06.2025, Home (M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O. No. 673/2025),hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the wholeState of Kerala forthe

investigation of the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 120 B, 406 and 420of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) against M/s Zoya Gold represented by its Proprietor, Smt.Shajna

Shamsudheen, Smt.Shajna Shamsudheen, Proprietor, Shri K. Abdul Salam, Smt. Remeela Beevi, Shri Rameez,

Smt.Shajini, Shri Ishak M, Shri Anz Badarudheen, Kumari.AjumiBadarudheen, Smt.Mumthas Beegam, Shri

Shahul Hameed, Shri Riyaz Mon, Shri Shajil Khan,Smt. Shakeela Beegam, Guarantors, and unknown others, if

any, for commission of offences punishableunder the said Acts and any other offences committed in the course of

transaction arising out of thesame fact, in regard to this case, within the whole State of Kerala.

[F. No. 228/56/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 12 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1467.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए केरल रा् य

सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ. (एमएस.) सं. 105/2025/गृह, ददनांक 12.06.2025, गृह (एम) जवभाग,

जतरुवनंतृुरम (एस. अर. ओ. सं्‍या- 675/2025) के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से मेससड ऄराफा गोल्ड &डायमंड्स

प्राआवेट जलजमटेड जजसका प्रजतजनजधत्व आसके प्रबंध जनदेिक श्री के.ऄब्दुल सलाम करते हैं, श्री के.ऄब्दुल सलाम, प्रबंध

जनदेिक, श्रीमती रेमीला बीवी, जनदेिक, श्री रमीज़, श्री हामीद कुंजु, श्रीमती िजनी, श्री रफीक, श्री ररयाज़ मॉन,

गारंटीकताडगण, और ऄज्ञात ऄन्य, यदद कोइ हों, के जवरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 (वषड 1860 का केंरीय

ऄजधजनयम 45) की धाराएुँ 120बी, 406 और 420 के ऄंतगडत दंडनीय काररत ऄजभकजथत ऄृराधों, जो ईक्त

ऄजधजनयमों के तहत दंडनीय हैं और आस मामले के संदभड में, ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न

काररत दकन्हीं ऄन्य ऄृराधों का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और

क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/57/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025

S.O. 1467.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

of the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No.G.O.(Ms.) No. 105/2025/HOME, dated

12.06.2025, Home (M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O. No. 675/2025),hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the wholeState of Kerala forthe

investigation of the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 120 B, 406 and 420of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) against M/s Arafa Gold & Diamonds PrivateLimited represented by its

Managing Director Shri K. Abdul Salam, Shri K. Abdul Salam, Managing Director, Smt. Remeela Beevi, Director,

Shri Rameez, Shri Hameed Kunju, Smt. Shaini, Shri Rafeeq, Shri Riyaz Mon, Guarantors, and unknown others, if

any, for commission of offences punishable under the said Acts and any other offencescommitted in the course of

transaction arising out of the same fact, in regard to this case, within thewhole State of Kerala.

[F. No. 228/57/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 12 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1468.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए ऄजधसूचना सं.

जी.ओ.(2 डी).सं.198, ददनांक 07.07.2025, गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तजमलनाडु रा्य सरकार

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5595

की सम्मजत से लोक सेवकों नामतः, श्री जे. सुरेि कुमार, सीमा िुल्क ऄधीक्षक, एयर कागो कॉम्प्लेक्स, सीमा िुल्क,

चेन्नइ, श्री अलोक िुक्ला, सीमा िुल्क ऄधीक्षक, एयर कागो कॉम्प्लेक्स, सीमा िुल्क, चेन्नइ, श्री ृी. तुलसीराम, सीमा

िुल्क ऄधीक्षक, एयर कागो कॉम्प्लेक्स, सीमा िुल्क, चेन्नइ, श्री एन.सजमुएल दीृक ऄजवनाि, मूल्यांकक, एयर कागो

कॉम्प्लेक्स, सीमा िुल्क, चेन्नइ, और गजर सरकारी व्यजक्तयों, नामतः श्री मररयप्ृन, सीमा िुल्क ब्रोकर, मेससड बीएसएम

लॉजजजस्ट्टक्स, मेससड जसरोया ्वेलसड के श्री दीृक जसरोया, मेससड कल्याण ्वेलरी के श्री संतोष को ारी, मेससड सुजनल

्वेलरी के श्री सुजनल ृरमार, मेससड बालाजी ्वेलसड के श्री सुजनल िमाड और सीमा िुल्क जवभाग के ऄन्य ऄज्ञात

कार्ममकों के जवरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 (वषड 1860 का केन्रीय ऄजधजनयम XLV) की धारा 120बी सृर त

धारा 420 तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केन्रीय ऄजधजनयम 49) (वषड 2018 में

यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 7 के ऄंतगडत ऄृराधों के जलए एक जनयजमत मामला ृंजीकृत करने हेतु ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु रा्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/58/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025

S.O. 1468.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

of the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.198, dated 07.07.2025 Home

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

Establishment in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu to register a regular case against the public servants,

namely, Shri. J. Suresh Kumar, Superintendent of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Customs, Chennai, Shri. Alok

Shukla, Superintendent of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Customs, Chennai, Shri. P. Thulasiram, Superintendent

of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Customs, Chennai, Shri N. Samuel Deepak Avinash, Appraiser, Air Cargo

Complex, Customs, Chennai and private individuals, namely, Shri. Mariappan, Customs Broker, M/s. BSM

Logistics, Shri. Deepak Siroya of M/s. Siroya Jewellers, Shri Santosh Kothari of M/s. Kalyan Jewellery, Shri Sunil

Parmar of M/s. Sunil Jewellery, Shri Sunil Sharma of M/s. Balaji Jewellers and other unknown officials of

Customs Department for the offences under section 120-B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(Central Act XLV of 1860) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) (as

amended in 2018).

[F. No. 228/58/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1469.—केन्रीय सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का

ऄजडन) ऄजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जजसे आसमें आसके ृश्चात ईक्त ऄजधजनयम कहा गया हज) की धारा 3 की

ईृधारा (1) के ऄधीन जारी की गइ भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना सं्‍या का.

अ. 135 तारीख 27 जनवरी, 2025, जो भारत के साप्ताजहक राजृत्र तारीख जनवरी 26, —फरवरी —1 2025, में

प्रकाजित की गइ थी, द्वारा ईस ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में अन्ध्र प्रदेि रा्य में ृजरोजलयम

ृदाथड ृररवाहन के जलए जहन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड द्वारा जवसाख (अन्ध्र प्रदेि) से रायृुर (छत्तीसगढ)

ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के प्रयोजन के जलए ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजडन के ऄृने अिय की घोषणा की थी;

5596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और ईक्त साप्ताजहक राजृत्र ऄजधसूचना की प्रजतयां जनता को तारीख 28 ऄप्रजल, 2025 को ईृलब्ध करा दी

गइ थी ;

और सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने, ईक्त ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1) के ऄधीन केन्रीय सरकार को ररृोटड दे

दी हज;

और केन्रीय सरकार ने, ईक्त ररृोटड ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने ृर दक ईक्त भूजम

ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए ऄृेजक्षत हज, ईसमें ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजडन करने का जवजनश्चय दकया हज ;

ऄतः ऄब, केन्रीय सरकार, ईक्त ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते

ुएए, यह घोषणा करती हज दक आस ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए

ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजडन दकया जाए ;

और केन्रीय सरकार ईक्त ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते ुएए, यह

जनदेि देती हज दक ईक्त भूजम में ईृयोग का ऄजधकार आस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्रीय सरकार में जनजहत

होने के बजाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर जहन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड में जनजहत होगा।

ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन ऄजधजनयम, 1962 की धारा 10 के ऄधीन दकसी भी क्षजतृूर्मत के जलए

जहन्दुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड ृूणडतया ईत्तरदायी होगी और धारा 13 के ऄधीन ृाआृलाआन से सम्बजन्धत

दकसी भी मामले ृर केन्रीय सरकार के जवप द्ध कोइ वाद, दावा या कानूनी कायडवाही नहीं हो सकेगी ;

ऄनुसूची

जजलाः ृावडतीृुरम मान्यम रा्यः अन्ध्र प्रदेि

क्रम

सं्‍या

गाुँव का नाम

मंडल का नाम

सवे सं्‍या

क्षेत्रफल

एकड

सेन्ट्स

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

1. सुबरा-28

बलीजाृेटा

109

0

03

2

110/35

0

09

3

110/31

0

07

4

110/32

0

16

5

110/33

0

02

6

110/22

0

11

7

110/21

0

04

8

110/16

0

09

9

110/15

0

02

10

110/14

0

09

11

110/13

0

03

12

110/12

0

09

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5597

13

110/1

0

07

14

111/21

0

05

15

111/22

0

07

16

111/17

0

02

17

111/19

0

04

18

111/18

0

05

19

111/13

0

08

20

111/15

0

01

21

111/14

0

02

22

111/12

0

04

23

111/11

0

02

24

111/1

0

02

25

101/29

0

06

26

101/30

0

07

27

101/27

0

01

28

101/31

0

04

29

101/13

0

07

30

101/12

0

02

31

101/7

0

02

32

101/6

0

02

33

101/5

0

06

34

96/11

0

08

35

96/12

0

06

36

96/18

0

02

37

96/17

0

04

38

96/16

0

02

39

96/21

0

04

40

96/22

0

05

41

96/24

0

02

42

96/23

0

04

5598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

43

71/14

0

05

44

71/16

0

02

45

71/15

0

05

46

71/10

0

04

47

71/11

0

04

48

71/7

0

04

49

71/8

0

02

50

71/1B

0

13

51

71/2

0

08

52

68

0

08

53

67/5

0

02

54

67/6

0

09

55

67/7

0

05

56

67/9

0

07

57

67/10

0

05

58

67/11

0

06

59

66

0

11

60

60/5

0

06

61

60/6

0

08

62

60/7

0

02

63

60/8

0

01

64

60/3

0

11

65

60/2

0

03

66

59/17

0

07

67

59/16

0

02

68

59/18

0

01

69

59/15

0

07

70

59/14

0

15

71

58/30

0

11

72

58/21

0

02

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5599

73

58/29

0

02

74

58/22

0

07

75

58/28

0

01

76

58/27

0

11

77

58/23

0

01

78

58/24

0

05

79

58/26

0

06

80

55/14

0

05

81

55/13

0

05

82

55/12

0

03

83

55/10

0

17

84

55/3

0

07

85

55/2

0

08

86

55/1

0

07

87

54/6

0

14

88

54/5

0

01

89

23/1

0

09

90

22/4

0

02

91

2. िीवरामृुरम-34

बलीजाृेटा

46/16

0

14

92

46/15

0

09

93

46/13

0

05

94

46/14

0

07

95

46/4

0

16

96

46/3

0

04

97

46/5

0

02

98

46/2

0

05

99

46/1

0

06

100

45/3

0

02

101

45/2

0

08

102

45/1

0

09

5600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

103

43/21

0

08

104

43/22

0

01

105

42/12

0

09

106

42/24

0

38

107

42/8

0

24

108

42/2

0

04

109

41/19

0

05

110

41/18

0

06

111

41/17

0

07

112

41/16

0

02

113

41/14

0

01

114

41/13

0

02

115

41/12

0

02

116

41/11

0

04

117

41/10

0

07

118

41/6

0

06

119

41/3

0

09

120

41/2

0

11

121

40/2

0

02

122

40/3

0

07

123

40/4

0

32

124

39

0

12

125

5/8

0

09

126

5/9

0

06

127

5/10

0

06

128

4/3

0

07

129

4/2

0

08

130

4/1

0

09

131

3. ृनकुवलसा-33

बलीजाृेटा

124/17

0

02

132

124/16

0

01

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5601

133

125/15

0

05

134

125/14

0

06

135

125/13

0

06

136

125/12

0

12

137

125/18

0

03

138

125/11

0

04

139

125/9

0

06

140

125/8

0

08

141

125/7

0

03

142

125/6

0

02

143

125/5

0

14

144

125/4

0

08

145

128/25A

0

38

146

128/23B

0

05

147

128/23A

0

06

148

127/3

0

02

149

127/4

0

02

150

127/11

0

02

151

127/10

0

04

152

127/5

0

09

153

127/7

0

02

154

127/6

0

05

155

157/3

0

04

156

157/2

0

09

157

157/1

0

25

158

157/9

0

02

159

156/14

0

07

160

156/13

0

06

161

156/6

0

02

162

156/3

0

07

5602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

163

156/4

0

13

164

156/8

0

01

165

151/5

0

02

166

151/4

0

08

167

151/1

0

15

168

151/2

0

04

169

155

0

04

170

152/3

0

13

171

152/1

0

10

172

153/5

0

35

173

153/4

0

27

174

141

0

09

175

148

0

02

176

147/5

0

08

177

147/4

0

05

178

147/3

0

02

179

146/16

0

02

180

146/13

0

07

181

146/14

0

02

182

146/12

0

05

183

146/15

0

02

184

146/11

0

04

185

146/1

0

02

186

146/2

0

07

187

146/4

0

05

188

146/6

0

01

189

146/5

0

07

190

145/26

0

02

191

4. ऄरसाड-35

बलीजाृेटा

164/1

0

02

192

163/15

0

05

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5603

193

163/14

0

02

194

163/13

0

02

195

163/16

0

02

196

163/17

0

06

197

163/9

0

01

198

163/8

0

02

199

163/7

0

03

200

163/6

0

02

201

163/10

0

06

202

163/4

0

02

203

163/2

0

02

204

163/3

0

09

205

162/17

0

02

206

162/15

0

30

207

162/14

0

17

208

162/13

0

04

209

162/7

0

16

210

161/20

0

06

211

161/19

0

06

212

161/14

0

06

213

161/12

0

08

214

161/11

0

11

215

161/9

0

06

216

161/10

0

06

217

158/10

0

14

218

158/13

0

05

219

158/14

0

06

220

158/12

0

02

221

157/8

0

03

222

157/7A

0

06

5604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

223

157/6

0

06

224

157/1

0

12

225

157/5

0

02

226

35/7

0

17

227

35/8

0

02

228

35/9

0

14

229

36/20

0

03

230

36/19

0

07

231

36/21

0

03

232

36/23

0

04

233

113/6

0

18

234

113/7

0

11

235

113/3

0

03

236

113/8

0

04

237

113/9

0

06

238

113/1

0

08

239

113/12

0

05

240

113/13

0

03

241

113/14

0

08

242

112/18

0

05

243

112/20

0

02

244

112/19

0

07

245

112/16

0

09

246

112/15

0

05

247

110/1

0

07

248

111/4

0

19

249

111/3

0

01

250

111/8

0

05

251

111/9

0

14

252

111/15

0

02

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5605

253

111/16

0

05

254

111/17

0

06

255

111/18

0

07

256

107/3

0

02

257

107/1

0

14

258

103/18

0

01

259

103/19

0

06

260

103/23

0

11

261

104/17

0

02

262

104/6

0

08

263

104/7

0

11

264

104/15

0

01

265

104/8

0

08

266

104/9

0

02

267

104/4

0

02

268

104/14

0

01

269

104/10

0

07

270

99

0

05

271

95/2

0

12

272

95/3

0

02

273

95/4

0

07

274

95/6

0

08

275

95/7

0

02

276

96/3

0

25

277

97/7

0

04

278

97/4

0

03

279

97/3

0

15

280

97/1

0

15

281

88/12

0

17

282

88/13

0

11

5606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

283

88/14

0

01

284

88/9

0

16

285

88/4

0

04

286

89/6

0

07

287

89/5

0

07

288

89/4

0

04

289

89/3

0

05

290

89/2

0

08

291

89/12

0

02

292

89/1

0

25

293

70/15

0

09

294

70/12

0

09

295

70/11

0

07

296

70/10

0

02

297

70/9

0

02

298

70/8

0

02

299

70/6

0

02

300

72/25

0

02

301

72/24

0

04

302

72/2

0

16

303

72/1

0

09

304

72/3

0

03

305

71

0

41

306

5. ऄज्जाडा-32

बलीजाृेटा

278/1

0

28

307

275

0

04

308

246/12

0

13

309

246/9

0

24

310

246/8

0

01

311

246/7

0

20

312

246/5

0

01

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5607

313

245/17

0

07

314

245/16

0

05

315

245/15

0

08

316

245/14

0

04

317

245/12

0

20

318

244

0

38

319

233/6

0

56

320

229/2

0

83

321

224

0

69

322

220

0

07

323

218

0

40

324

218/A

0

01

325

192/12

0

19

326

192/11

0

04

327

192/10

0

05

328

192/8

0

05

329

192/7

0

02

330

192/5

0

16

331

192/6

0

03

332

189/4

0

06

333

189/3

0

06

334

189/2

0

32

335

185/4

0

06

336

185/5

0

02

337

185/6

0

20

338

185/17

0

01

339

185/7

0

07

340

185/8

0

06

341

185/9

0

11

342

185/10

0

01

5608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

343

185/1

0

12

344

185/11

0

01

345

183/1

0

66

346

6. रावीृल्ले-109

गाप गुजबल्ली

243/2

0

02

347

7. ृेध्दुप -86

गाप गुजबल्ली

173/28

0

04

348

175/12

0

18

349

175/11

0

18

350

175/10

0

08

351

175/9

0

12

352

175/8

0

19

353

176/1

0

62

354

178

0

16

355

186/8

0

02

356

186/9

0

11

357

186/7

0

01

358

187/30

0

06

359

187/29

0

19

360

187/14

0

03

361

187/13

0

07

362

187/9

0

19

363

187/8

0

04

364

187/5

0

03

365

187/3

0

04

366

187/4

0

03

367

188/5

0

02

368

188/4

0

06

369

188/2

0

09

370

188/1

0

11

371

37/6

0

04

372

36/12

0

13

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5609

373

36/10

0

12

374

36/9

0

01

375

36/8

0

14

376

76/10

0

09

377

76/8

0

11

378

76/9

0

09

379

82

0

02

380

75

0

05

381

72/1A

0

32

382

43/2

0

06

383

43/3

0

06

384

43/5

0

81

385

44/14

0

05

386

44/11

0

10

387

44/12

0

03

388

44/10

0

06

389

44/9

0

08

390

44/8

0

08

391

69/2I

0

06

392

69/2G

0

06

393

69/2E

0

07

394

69/2D

0

07

395

69/2A

0

13

396

67/4D

0

11

397

67/4C

0

07

398

67/4B

0

13

399

67/2

0

21

400

66

0

04

401

8. िीवरामृुरम ृेध्दुप दरर-107

गाप गुजबल्ली

200/5

0

16

402

200/6

0

15

5610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

403

201/5

0

08

404

201/4

0

14

405

201/6

0

02

406

201/3

0

09

407

201/2

0

03

408

201/1

0

03

409

202/7

0

06

410

202/6

0

07

411

202/5

0

17

412

227/21

0

06

413

227/20

0

07

414

227/19

0

14

415

228

0

32

416

226/3

0

01

417

226/2

0

02

418

225

0

03

419

219/16

0

02

420

9. िीवम-108

गाप गुजबल्ली

221/11

0

08

421

221/10

0

08

422

221/8

0

03

423

221/9

0

12

424

221/4

0

03

425

221/3

0

02

426

221/2

0

09

427

221/1

0

08

428

220/21

0

07

429

220/18

0

08

430

220/17

0

04

431

220/16

0

04

432

220/6

0

05

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5611

433

220/5

0

04

434

220/4

0

04

435

220/3

0

03

436

220/2

0

06

437

220/1

0

07

438

219/16

0

02

439

219/17

0

17

440

219/14

0

01

441

219/13

0

21

442

219/23

0

03

443

219/4

0

15

444

219/2

0

05

445

219/1

0

01

446

77/5

0

14

447

77/4

0

01

448

77/12

0

17

449

76/13

0

15

450

76/11

0

01

451

76/12

0

02

452

76/10

0

02

453

76/14

0

15

454

76/5

0

11

455

76/4

0

07

456

76/15

0

05

457

75/3

0

17

458

75/2

0

14

459

75/1

0

22

460

10. ृोलीनायडूवलस-106

गाप गुजबल्ली

275/3

0

11

461

275/5

0

05

462

274/2

0

22

5612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

463

274/1

0

02

464

273/8

0

23

465

273/7

0

26

466

273/6

0

24

467

273/4

0

12

468

273/3

0

02

469

308/5

0

02

470

266

1

32

471

307/7

0

18

472

307/6

0

03

473

307/8

0

04

474

307/11

0

02

475

307/10

0

03

476

307/12

0

04

477

307/15

0

03

478

307/13

0

03

479

238/13

0

06

480

238/12

0

06

481

238/8

0

05

482

238/7

0

06

483

238/1

0

03

484

306/9

0

01

485

306/8

0

08

486

306/6

0

10

487

306/5

0

01

488

306/7

0

01

489

236/16

0

09

490

236/14

0

11

491

236/9

0

02

492

236/11

0

04

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5613

493

236/10

0

06

494

236/12

0

01

495

236/2

0

11

496

236/1

0

02

497

11. गोट्टीवलस-103

गाप गुजबल्ली

189/16

0

04

498

189/5

0

23

499

188/13

0

05

500

188/12

0

06

501

155/24

0

09

502

155/23

0

03

503

155/13

0

02

504

155/12

0

13

505

155/11

0

05

506

155/2

0

06

507

187/17

0

02

508

187/15

0

02

509

187/14

0

13

510

187/13

0

02

511

187/11

0

05

512

187/6

0

06

513

187/7

0

08

514

187/2

0

04

515

187/8

0

02

516

187/1

0

11

517

157/14

0

02

518

158/7C

0

12

519

158/7B

0

13

520

158/6

0

05

521

158/4A

0

05

522

158/5

0

07

5614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

523

158/4B

0

06

524

158/2B

0

02

525

159/24

0

08

526

159/23

0

01

527

159/22

0

03

528

159/17

0

01

529

159/18

0

13

530

159/14

0

02

531

160/16

0

02

532

160/15

0

01

533

160/14

0

15

534

160/13

0

05

535

160/11

0

04

536

160/10

0

14

537

161/15

0

02

538

161/5

0

05

539

161/4

0

06

540

161/6

0

01

541

161/3

0

13

542

161/1

0

05

543

163/4

0

03

544

163/3

0

11

545

163/2

0

04

546

163/1

0

28

547

162/16

0

03

548

162/15

0

05

549

162/14

0

06

550

162/13

0

08

551

162/9

0

07

552

162/10

0

02

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5615

553

162/7

0

04

554

162/6

0

05

555

162/3

0

05

556

162/1

0

11

557

172

0

04

558

171

0

12

559

170/1

0

21

560

173/4

0

58

561

12. सांबन्नवलस-35

गाप गुजबल्ली

90/1

0

55

562

90/1P

0

14

563

63/2

0

03

564

63/3

0

23

565

63/4

0

15

566

65/2

0

05

567

65/1

0

08

568

64/2

0

02

569

59/20

0

05

570

59/22B

0

03

571

59/22A

0

04

572

59/21

0

09

573

59/17

0

02

574

59/14

0

02

575

66/10

0

05

576

66/9A

0

06

577

66/8

0

02

578

66/1A

0

11

579

58/19

0

04

580

58/13

0

13

581

58/12

0

03

582

55/1

0

06

5616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

583

56/1

0

02

584

54/2

0

04

585

54/19

0

06

586

54/3

0

03

587

53

0

06

588

52/3

0

11

589

52/5

0

01

590

52/4

0

17

591

52/2

0

12

592

50/2

0

12

593

50/1

0

09

594

49

0

26

595

48

0

25

596

13. नागुप -113

गाप गुजबल्ली

128

0

25

597

116/5

0

10

598

116/7

0

02

599

116/6

0

22

600

120/2A

0

24

601

117/9

0

05

602

117/3

0

33

603

112

0

51

604

110/1

0

11

605

107/3

0

38

606

107/2

0

02

607

105/19

0

02

608

105/17A

0

16

609

105/18

0

09

610

105/15A

0

01

611

105/13

0

01

612

105/14

0

11

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5617

613

105/6A

0

06

614

105/5A

0

07

615

105/4A

0

08

616

105/3A

0

06

617

105/2A

0

02

618

106/3

0

18

619

94/17

0

07

620

94/5

0

03

621

94/4

0

02

622

94/3

0

04

623

94/1

0

05

624

14. संतोसृुरम-102

गाप गुजबल्ली

158/2

0

02

625

158/1

0

29

626

79/5

0

01

627

79/4

0

11

628

79/3

0

08

629

79/7

0

15

630

79/10

0

09

631

79/9

0

16

632

79/17

0

02

633

78/1

0

07

634

78/2

0

03

635

76/5

0

32

636

76/30

0

02

637

76/29

0

01

638

76/23

0

16

639

76/22

0

02

640

76/24

0

01

641

76/19

0

12

642

76/3

0

14

5618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

643

75/3

0

23

644

75/2

0

14

645

73

0

24

646

72/6

0

15

647

67/10

0

18

648

67/9

0

05

649

67/8

0

01

650

67/6

0

21

651

67/5

0

02

652

68/16

0

06

653

68/12

0

11

654

68/11

0

17

655

51/18

0

06

656

51/15

0

03

657

51/17

0

02

658

51/16

0

14

659

51/25

0

04

660

51/13

0

03

661

51/6

0

07

662

51/7

0

14

663

51/8

0

02

664

51/3

0

11

665

51/2

0

08

666

51/1

0

06

667

46/1

0

06

668

47/17

0

06

669

47/15

0

03

670

47/7

0

43

671

47/6

0

04

672

47/5

0

30

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5619

673

41/1

0

30

674

41/2

0

26

675

41/3A

0

42

676

15. कुडूम-72

जीय्यम्मवलस

479

0

15

677

16. गोरीृुरम-84

जीय्यम्मवलस

49

0

29

678

44/8B

0

08

679

44/8A

0

11

680

44/4A

0

02

681

44/1F

0

14

682

44/1E

0

07

683

44/1D

0

08

684

43/5G

0

08

685

43/5F

0

04

686

43/5E

0

08

687

43/5D

0

08

688

43/4D

0

14

689

43/4C

0

21

690

43/4E

0

02

691

43/3B

0

07

692

43/2B

0

06

693

43/2A

0

02

694

43/1

0

06

695

42/1A

0

17

696

20/7

0

13

697

20/8

0

09

698

20/9

0

09

699

20/4

0

02

700

20/3

0

08

701

20/11A

0

03

702

19/13A

0

11

5620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

703

19/8

0

07

704

19/10

0

02

705

19/9

0

02

706

19/2

0

08

707

18/6B

0

06

708

18/6A

0

06

709

18/5B

0

07

710

18/5A

0

08

711

18/4

0

02

712

17. गंगराजृुरम-86

गाप गुजबल्ली

7/17

0

16

713

7/16

0

13

714

7/11

0

03

715

18. तोटृल्ले-87

गाप गुजबल्ली

177/7B

0

01

716

177/8D

0

04

717

177/8C

0

11

718

177/6

0

01

719

176/2

0

17

720

174/11

0

08

721

174/10

0

08

722

174/8

0

08

723

174/7

0

05

724

174/6

0

04

725

174/1

0

39

726

175/5

0

02

727

172/4

0

30

728

172/5

0

02

729

164/8

0

03

730

164/7

0

07

731

164/9

0

11

732

164/3

0

09

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5621

733

164/1B

0

08

734

163/5B

0

07

735

163/4B

0

06

736

163/4A

0

04

737

162/4B

0

02

738

162/13A

0

05

739

162/12

0

02

740

162/4A

0

18

741

162/2

0

02

742

162/1

0

07

743

161/3

0

16

744

32/10B

0

07

745

32/11A

0

07

746

32/9B

0

07

747

32/7A

0

08

748

32/4B

0

08

749

32/5A

0

08

750

30/7

0

07

751

30/9

0

11

752

30/6C

0

01

753

30/10

0

24

754

30/3B

0

13

755

22/6

0

02

756

22/5

0

17

757

22/4

0

08

758

22/3

0

04

759

29/14

0

04

760

23/22

0

05

761

23/19

0

07

762

23/21

0

02

5622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

763

23/20

0

13

764

23/15

0

02

765

23/16

0

05

766

23/14

0

09

767

23/10

0

01

768

23/13

0

06

769

25/15

0

05

770

25/14

0

12

771

25/13

0

01

772

25/3

0

02

773

25/4

0

13

774

25/2

0

15

775

12/11

0

09

776

12/6B

0

11

777

12/10

0

07

778

12/5B

0

13

779

12/1C

0

02

780

11/11B

0

08

781

11/10

0

30

782

10/18

0

08

783

10/16

0

05

784

10/17

0

03

785

10/1

0

20

786

10/15

0

02

787

10/6

0

02

788

10/4

0

03

789

10/3

0

08

790

9/21A

0

11

791

9/11A

0

09

792

9/10A

0

03

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5623

793

19. हसगनाृुरम

जीय्यम्मवलस

156/19

0

08

794

156/18

0

09

795

156/13C

0

13

796

156/11B

0

16

797

156/9A

0

03

798

156/10A1

0

02

799

156/10A2

0

05

800

156/2B

0

06

801

156/3A

0

09

802

156/4A

0

02

803

156/2A

0

02

804

156/1

0

12

805

20. चींतल बेलगाम-68

जीय्यम्मवलस

74/14B

0

05

806

74/14

0

03

807

74/13

0

02

808

74/12

0

08

809

74/10C

0

02

810

74/10B

0

05

811

74/10A

0

08

812

74/4

0

04

813

74/3

0

14

814

74/1

0

08

815

74/2

0

06

816

72/20

0

02

817

72/19

0

07

818

72/11B

0

01

819

72/12

0

08

820

72/13

0

11

821

72/9B

0

08

822

72/9A

0

01

5624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

823

72/8

0

06

824

72/3

0

13

825

72/2

0

01

826

72/1B

0

12

827

72/1A

0

08

828

71/6

0

09

829

71/4C

0

01

830

71/4B

0

05

831

71/4A

0

13

832

56/13

0

01

833

56/12

0

12

834

56/11

0

15

835

56/5

0

01

836

56/2

0

08

837

56/3

0

01

838

55

0

08

839

54/9

0

02

840

54/8

0

18

841

54/6

0

15

842

54/3

0

20

843

54/2

0

25

844

53

0

41

845

21. गीजब-77

गाप गुजबल्ली

86/8

0

02

846

86/7

0

02

847

86/6

0

01

848

22. मकान हरीृुरम

जीय्यम्मवलस

120/6F

0

02

849

120/6G

0

05

850

120/9

0

28

851

121/13A

0

01

852

121/12

0

12

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5625

853

121/4

0

06

854

121/5

0

14

855

121/6

0

15

856

121/8

0

21

857

89/5

0

24

858

89/3

0

11

859

89/4A

0

05

860

89/2

0

08

861

89/1

0

03

862

88/3

0

02

863

88/2

0

11

864

88/1B

0

07

865

88/1A

0

18

866

80/12

0

14

867

80/11E

0

01

868

79/2H

0

14

869

79/2G

0

04

870

79/1H

0

04

871

79/1G

0

08

872

79/1F

0

06

873

79/1E

0

05

874

79/1D

0

03

875

79/1C

0

04

876

79/1B

0

04

877

79/1A

0

04

878

23. बसंगी-76

जीय्यम्मवलस

85/8

0

05

879

85/7

0

29

880

85/10

0

03

881

85/11

0

03

882

85/14

0

14

5626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

883

86/15

0

06

884

86/12

0

05

885

86/14

0

01

886

86/7

0

04

887

86/13

0

01

888

86/5

0

02

889

86/6

0

01

890

112/15A

0

01

891

112/14

0

13

892

110/14

0

06

893

110/12

0

06

894

110/13

0

18

895

111/6

0

20

896

111/2

0

09

897

111/3

0

02

898

111/1

0

18

899

107/12

0

13

900

107/11

0

05

901

107/10

0

06

902

107/7

0

06

903

107/6

0

03

904

107/3

0

04

905

94/1

0

30

906

97/1B

0

14

907

97/2A

0

06

908

97/6

0

19

909

97/3

0

02

910

24. गौरमृेटा-34

जीय्यम्मवलस

85/2

0

11

911

86/7

0

15

912

86/3

0

07

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5627

913

86/2

0

26

914

86/1

0

02

915

84/5

0

34

916

72/10B

0

08

917

72/9

0

09

918

72/8

0

12

919

72/6

0

17

920

72/7

0

08

921

72/2

0

17

922

72/1

0

08

923

74/12

0

03

924

70/7D

0

08

925

70/7C

0

07

926

70/7A

0

13

927

70/6A

0

14

928

70/5

0

13

929

23/18

0

03

930

23/16

0

03

931

23/6

0

17

932

23/5

0

30

933

19/12

0

01

934

19/11

0

18

935

19/8

0

01

936

19/9

0

16

937

19/10

0

05

938

19/1

0

13

939

18/5

0

04

940

18/9

0

04

941

18/6

0

08

942

18/7

0

15

5628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

943

18/8

0

02

944

18/1

0

01

945

17

0

16

946

25. भट्टलभर-27

जीय्यम्मवलस

75/7

0

17

947

75/5

0

05

948

75/4

0

13

949

75/3

0

08

950

75/2

0

02

951

75/1

0

06

952

76/1

0

50

953

111/5

0

18

954

111/1B

0

07

955

77/2

0

26

956

110/3

0

08

957

78/3

0

34

958

79

0

06

959

82/5

0

01

960

82/1

0

37

961

82/4

0

04

962

89

0

17

963

88/5

0

23

964

88/6

0

01

965

88/3

0

17

966

88/1

0

22

967

87/15C

0

39

968

87/16

0

01

969

87/15B

0

13

970

87/13

0

23

971

87/14

0

03

972

92/4

0

06

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5629

973

92/5B

0

09

974

92/3

0

09

975

93/3

0

25

976

94/2

0

09

977

94/1C

0

09

978

94/1D

0

02

979

94/1B

0

07

980

94/1A

0

12

981

7

0

04

982

95/9

0

02

983

6/2

0

27

984

6/2A1

0

36

985

6/1

0

04

986

5/1

0

02

987

26. कीटसाडा-14

कुप ृम

90/1

0

47

988

89/7A

0

12

989

89/5

0

07

990

89/4

0

07

991

89/3

0

12

992

89/2

0

12

993

87/2B

0

24

994

87/2A

0

17

995

86/3D

0

03

996

86/4D

0

08

997

86/4C

0

11

998

86/4B

0

05

999

86/3C

0

03

1000

86/3B

0

11

1001

86/4A

0

03

1002

84/6B

0

05

5630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1003

84/6C

0

08

1004

84/5A

0

20

1005

84/5B

0

02

1006

84/4C

0

05

1007

84/1

0

04

1008

79/2

0

18

1009

81/3

0

26

1010

81/2

0

02

1011

81/1

0

02

1012

82/1E

0

12

1013

82/1D

0

20

1014

83/3

0

06

1015

83/2B

0

06

1016

83/2A

0

28

1017

83/1

0

18

1018

27. दलाआृेटा-25

कोमरड

143

0

10

1019

142/2

0

33

1020

141/3

0

30

1021

141/2

0

11

1022

140/7

0

21

1023

140/4

0

02

1024

140/3

0

12

1025

115/2

0

14

1026

115/1

0

01

1027

114

0

32

1028

113/9A

0

24

1029

112/9B

0

01

1030

112/7

0

06

1031

112/6

0

04

1032

112/5B

0

15

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5631

1033

112/3

0

15

1034

49

0

06

1035

50

0

15

1036

110/1A

0

04

1037

110/2

0

09

1038

108/2B

0

10

1039

108/1B

0

06

1040

108/5G

0

03

1041

108/5F

0

02

1042

108/5E

0

04

1043

108/5D

0

03

1044

108/5C

0

05

1045

108/5B

0

04

1046

108/5A

0

04

1047

107

1

11

1048

73

0

18

1049

74/2G

0

11

1050

74/2F

0

12

1051

74/2E

0

15

1052

74/2B

0

13

1053

74/1

0

09

1054

76/2

0

38

1055

78/3

0

16

1056

78/2

0

16

1057

78/1

0

17

1058

79/2

0

17

1059

80/2

0

30

1060

81

0

17

1061

81/A

0

08

1062

82/2B

0

13

5632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1063

82/1

0

14

1064

83/1

0

13

1065

83/2

0

15

1066

83/3

0

04

1067

83/5

0

13

1068

85/2

0

17

1069

86/3

0

13

1070

88/4J

0

13

1071

88/4E

0

13

1072

88/4C

0

15

1073

88/4B

0

07

1074

88/4A

0

12

1075

88/1

0

16

1076

87/4C

0

04

1077

28. मदलाडी-15

कोमरड

128/2A

0

07

1078

128/1H

0

08

1079

128/1G

0

05

1080

128/1F

0

16

1081

127/9A

0

06

1082

127/9B

0

06

1083

127/8

0

14

1084

127/7

0

02

1085

127/5A

0

09

1086

126/1J

0

02

1087

126/1I

0

08

1088

126/1H

0

13

1089

126/1G

0

22

1090

123/2

0

08

1091

123/2A

0

08

1092

123/1

0

23

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5633

1093

122/11

0

14

1094

29. तुडम-105

कोमरड

124/11

0

09

1095

124/10

0

02

1096

124/8

0

08

1097

124/7

0

13

1098

122/6

0

05

1099

122/7

0

05

1100

122/5

0

11

1101

122/1

0

06

1102

122/3

0

09

1103

122/2

0

12

1104

120/3

0

25

1105

120/2

0

27

1106

119/8

0

02

1107

119/7

0

04

1108

119/6

0

04

1109

119/1

0

04

1110

117/4

0

05

1111

117/5

0

05

1112

117/7

0

19

1113

117/6

0

02

1114

117/16

0

04

1115

116/13

0

19

1116

116/11

0

01

1117

116/10

0

11

1118

114

0

05

1119

113/1

0

39

1120

111/9

0

01

1121

111/6

0

26

1122

111/5

0

11

5634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1123

98

0

04

1124

95/7

0

24

1125

95/5

0

02

1126

95/6

0

06

1127

94/11

0

04

1128

94/5

0

04

1129

94/4

0

05

1130

94/3

0

13

1131

94/2

0

02

1132

92/9

0

06

1133

92/5

0

12

1134

92/6

0

12

1135

92/3

0

12

1136

92/2

0

02

1137

92/1

0

10

1138

89/5

0

13

1139

90/13

0

38

1140

87/5

0

41

1141

87/2

0

01

1142

87/1

0

11

1143

30. रायृुरम-15

कोमरड

81

0

46

1144

63/10C

0

02

1145

63/10B

0

17

1146

63/10A

0

02

1147

63/8

0

05

1148

63/7

0

07

1149

63/2

0

02

1150

65/3J

0

17

1151

65/3I

0

06

1152

65/3H

0

08

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5635

1153

65/3G

0

08

1154

65/3F

0

09

1155

65/3E

0

02

1156

65/2

0

05

1157

65/1C

0

19

1158

65/1A

0

08

1159

60

0

04

1160

59/2

0

03

1161

59/1

0

18

1162

58/3B

0

03

1163

36/1K

0

14

1164

35/7

0

20

1165

35/6

0

01

1166

34/3

0

38

1167

33/4C

0

14

1168

33/4B

0

09

1169

33/2

0

30

1170

32/10

0

08

1171

27/3F

0

02

1172

27/3E

0

10

1173

27/3D

0

02

1174

27/3C

0

02

1175

27/3B

0

14

1176

27/3A

0

04

1177

27/1L

0

08

1178

27/2L

0

02

1179

27/1K

0

07

1180

27/1I

0

02

1181

27/1J

0

06

1182

27/1G

0

02

5636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1183

27/1H

0

05

1184

27/1C

0

12

1185

27/1B

0

11

1186

27/1A

0

03

1187

28/3

0

03

1188

15/5

0

20

1189

15/4

0

09

1190

15/3

0

08

1191

15/2

0

05

1192

15/1

0

16

1193

14/15

0

06

1194

14/11

0

08

1195

14/12

0

09

1196

14/10

0

01

1197

14/9

0

08

1198

14/1D

0

07

1199

14/1C

0

02

1200

31. कोट्टु-92

कोमरड

36/1

0

17

1201

33/1

0

47

1202

32

0

06

1203

32. केमीसीला-77

कोमरड

124/1-B

0

03

1204

124/1-C

0

10

1205

124/1-D

0

04

1206

124/1-E

0

05

1207

124/1-F

0

10

1208

124/1-A

0

10

1209

122/5

0

18

1210

122/4

0

03

1211

122/3

0

19

1212

122/2

0

26

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5637

1213

122/1

0

07

1214

118/10

0

07

1215

118/17

0

02

1216

118/11

0

02

1217

118/9

0

06

1218

118/4

0

01

1219

118/6

0

02

1220

118/5-A

0

04

1221

118/5B

0

04

1222

118/1

0

18

1223

117

0

18

1224

119/1

0

06

1225

116/1

0

06

1226

116/2

0

50

1227

111/1

0

20

1228

112

0

66

1229

113

0

02

1230

104/1

0

07

1231

102/1J

0

14

1232

102/1I

0

09

1233

102/1H

0

04

1234

103

0

15

1235

33. लब॓सु-115

कोमरड

7

0

36

1236

6/2

0

51

1237

4/1

0

76

1238

2/3

0

01

1239

2/1

0

14

1240

2/2

0

44

1241

34. कोरीसील-5

कोमरड

92/1

0

49

1242

96/2

0

17

5638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1243

93/1

0

04

1244

95/8

0

32

1245

95/6

0

25

1246

95/5

0

15

1247

95/4

0

24

1248

74/3

0

27

1249

74/1

0

27

1250

75

0

11

1251

72

0

03

1252

76/4A

0

28

1253

76/3

0

12

1254

76/2

0

15

1255

71/3A

0

09

1256

71/3B

0

12

1257

71/2

0

19

1258

69/6

0

40

1259

69/5

0

13

1260

69/1

0

17

1261

69/4

0

03

1262

69/2

0

07

1263

63/7

0

06

1264

63/6

0

21

1265

63/5

0

09

1266

63/4

0

04

1267

63/2

0

11

1268

63/1

0

23

1269

62/9

0

03

1270

64/15

0

06

1271

64/12

0

02

1272

64/14

0

02

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5639

1273

64/13

0

06

1274

64/10

0

03

1275

64/9

0

02

1276

64/7

0

02

1277

45/6

0

07

1278

45/5

0

08

1279

45/7

0

02

1280

46/6F

0

27

1281

46/6D

0

09

1282

46/1B

0

03

1283

46/6C

0

05

1284

46/6B

0

03

1285

44

0

38

1286

21/6

0

21

1287

21/5

0

05

1288

21/4

0

11

1289

21/3

0

07

1290

21/2

0

15

1291

39/6

0

09

1292

39/5

0

09

1293

39/4

0

13

1294

39/3

0

03

1295

22/3

0

03

1296

22/1

0

09

1297

38

0

83

1298

37/1

0

02

1299

28/4

0

06

5640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1300

28/5A

0

07

1301

28/2F

0

06

1302

28/2G

0

02

1303

1

01

86

[फा. सं. अर-11025(11)/12/2018-ओअर-I/इ-25587]

एस.एस.ससह, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1469.—Whereas, by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, number S.O. 135(E) dated the 27th January, 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‖), and published in the Weekly Gazette of India dated January 26 – February 1, 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 a pipeline for transportation of petroleum products from

Visakha (Andhra Pradesh) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in the State of Andhra Pradesh by Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Weekly Gazette notification were made available to the public on 28th

April, 2025;

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

his report to the Central Government;

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

land is required for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, has decided to acquire the 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 acquired for the purpose of laying the said pipeline;

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 this 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 said Act;

Further, in accordance with Section 13 of the said Act, no suit, claim, or legal proceeding shall lie against the

Central Government in respect of any matter relating to the said pipeline.

SCHEDULE

District: Parvathipuram Manyam State: Andhra

Pradesh

Sl.

No.

Name of Village

Name of Mandal

Survey No.

Area

Acres

Cents

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

1. Subhadra-28

Balijipeta

109

0

03

2

110/35

0

09

3

110/31

0

07

4

110/32

0

16

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5641

5

110/33

0

02

6

110/22

0

11

7

110/21

0

04

8

110/16

0

09

9

110/15

0

02

10

110/14

0

09

11

110/13

0

03

12

110/12

0

09

13

110/1

0

07

14

111/21

0

05

15

111/22

0

07

16

111/17

0

02

17

111/19

0

04

18

111/18

0

05

19

111/13

0

08

20

111/15

0

01

21

111/14

0

02

22

111/12

0

04

23

111/11

0

02

24

111/1

0

02

25

101/29

0

06

26

101/30

0

07

27

101/27

0

01

28

101/31

0

04

29

101/13

0

07

30

101/12

0

02

31

101/7

0

02

32

101/6

0

02

33

101/5

0

06

34

96/11

0

08

35

96/12

0

06

36

96/18

0

02

37

96/17

0

04

38

96/16

0

02

39

96/21

0

04

40

96/22

0

05

41

96/24

0

02

42

96/23

0

04

43

71/14

0

05

44

71/16

0

02

5642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

45

71/15

0

05

46

71/10

0

04

47

71/11

0

04

48

71/7

0

04

49

71/8

0

02

50

71/1B

0

13

51

71/2

0

08

52

68

0

08

53

67/5

0

02

54

67/6

0

09

55

67/7

0

05

56

67/9

0

07

57

67/10

0

05

58

67/11

0

06

59

66

0

11

60

60/5

0

06

61

60/6

0

08

62

60/7

0

02

63

60/8

0

01

64

60/3

0

11

65

60/2

0

03

66

59/17

0

07

67

59/16

0

02

68

59/18

0

01

69

59/15

0

07

70

59/14

0

15

71

58/30

0

11

72

58/21

0

02

73

58/29

0

02

74

58/22

0

07

75

58/28

0

01

76

58/27

0

11

77

58/23

0

01

78

58/24

0

05

79

58/26

0

06

80

55/14

0

05

81

55/13

0

05

82

55/12

0

03

83

55/10

0

17

84

55/3

0

07

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5643

85

55/2

0

08

86

55/1

0

07

87

54/6

0

14

88

54/5

0

01

89

23/1

0

09

90

22/4

0

02

91

2. Sivarampuram-34

Balijipeta

46/16

0

14

92

46/15

0

09

93

46/13

0

05

94

46/14

0

07

95

46/4

0

16

96

46/3

0

04

97

46/5

0

02

98

46/2

0

05

99

46/1

0

06

100

45/3

0

02

101

45/2

0

08

102

45/1

0

09

103

43/21

0

08

104

43/22

0

01

105

42/12

0

09

106

42/24

0

38

107

42/8

0

24

108

42/2

0

04

109

41/19

0

05

110

41/18

0

06

111

41/17

0

07

112

41/16

0

02

113

41/14

0

01

114

41/13

0

02

115

41/12

0

02

116

41/11

0

04

117

41/10

0

07

118

41/6

0

06

119

41/3

0

09

120

41/2

0

11

121

40/2

0

02

122

40/3

0

07

123

40/4

0

32

124

39

0

12

5644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

125

5/8

0

09

126

5/9

0

06

127

5/10

0

06

128

4/3

0

07

129

4/2

0

08

130

4/1

0

09

131

3. Panukuvalasa-33

Balijipeta

124/17

0

02

132

124/16

0

01

133

125/15

0

05

134

125/14

0

06

135

125/13

0

06

136

125/12

0

12

137

125/18

0

03

138

125/11

0

04

139

125/9

0

06

140

125/8

0

08

141

125/7

0

03

142

125/6

0

02

143

125/5

0

14

144

125/4

0

08

145

128/25A

0

38

146

128/23B

0

05

147

128/23A

0

06

148

127/3

0

02

149

127/4

0

02

150

127/11

0

02

151

127/10

0

04

152

127/5

0

09

153

127/7

0

02

154

127/6

0

05

155

157/3

0

04

156

157/2

0

09

157

157/1

0

25

158

157/9

0

02

159

156/14

0

07

160

156/13

0

06

161

156/6

0

02

162

156/3

0

07

163

156/4

0

13

164

156/8

0

01

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5645

165

151/5

0

02

166

151/4

0

08

167

151/1

0

15

168

151/2

0

04

169

155

0

04

170

152/3

0

13

171

152/1

0

10

172

153/5

0

35

173

153/4

0

27

174

141

0

09

175

148

0

02

176

147/5

0

08

177

147/4

0

05

178

147/3

0

02

179

146/16

0

02

180

146/13

0

07

181

146/14

0

02

182

146/12

0

05

183

146/15

0

02

184

146/11

0

04

185

146/1

0

02

186

146/2

0

07

187

146/4

0

05

188

146/6

0

01

189

146/5

0

07

190

145/26

0

02

191

4. Arasada-35

Balijipeta

164/1

0

02

192

163/15

0

05

193

163/14

0

02

194

163/13

0

02

195

163/16

0

02

196

163/17

0

06

197

163/9

0

01

198

163/8

0

02

199

163/7

0

03

200

163/6

0

02

201

163/10

0

06

202

163/4

0

02

203

163/2

0

02

204

163/3

0

09

5646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

205

162/17

0

02

206

162/15

0

30

207

162/14

0

17

208

162/13

0

04

209

162/7

0

16

210

161/20

0

06

211

161/19

0

06

212

161/14

0

06

213

161/12

0

08

214

161/11

0

11

215

161/9

0

06

216

161/10

0

06

217

158/10

0

14

218

158/13

0

05

219

158/14

0

06

220

158/12

0

02

221

157/8

0

03

222

157/7A

0

06

223

157/6

0

06

224

157/1

0

12

225

157/5

0

02

226

35/7

0

17

227

35/8

0

02

228

35/9

0

14

229

36/20

0

03

230

36/19

0

07

231

36/21

0

03

232

36/23

0

04

233

113/6

0

18

234

113/7

0

11

235

113/3

0

03

236

113/8

0

04

237

113/9

0

06

238

113/1

0

08

239

113/12

0

05

240

113/13

0

03

241

113/14

0

08

242

112/18

0

05

243

112/20

0

02

244

112/19

0

07

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5647

245

112/16

0

09

246

112/15

0

05

247

110/1

0

07

248

111/4

0

19

249

111/3

0

01

250

111/8

0

05

251

111/9

0

14

252

111/15

0

02

253

111/16

0

05

254

111/17

0

06

255

111/18

0

07

256

107/3

0

02

257

107/1

0

14

258

103/18

0

01

259

103/19

0

06

260

103/23

0

11

261

104/17

0

02

262

104/6

0

08

263

104/7

0

11

264

104/15

0

01

265

104/8

0

08

266

104/9

0

02

267

104/4

0

02

268

104/14

0

01

269

104/10

0

07

270

99

0

05

271

95/2

0

12

272

95/3

0

02

273

95/4

0

07

274

95/6

0

08

275

95/7

0

02

276

96/3

0

25

277

97/7

0

04

278

97/4

0

03

279

97/3

0

15

280

97/1

0

15

281

88/12

0

17

282

88/13

0

11

283

88/14

0

01

284

88/9

0

16

5648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

285

88/4

0

04

286

89/6

0

07

287

89/5

0

07

288

89/4

0

04

289

89/3

0

05

290

89/2

0

08

291

89/12

0

02

292

89/1

0

25

293

70/15

0

09

294

70/12

0

09

295

70/11

0

07

296

70/10

0

02

297

70/9

0

02

298

70/8

0

02

299

70/6

0

02

300

72/25

0

02

301

72/24

0

04

302

72/2

0

16

303

72/1

0

09

304

72/3

0

03

305

71

0

41

306

5. Ajjada-32

Balijipeta

278/1

0

28

307

275

0

04

308

246/12

0

13

309

246/9

0

24

310

246/8

0

01

311

246/7

0

20

312

246/5

0

01

313

245/17

0

07

314

245/16

0

05

315

245/15

0

08

316

245/14

0

04

317

245/12

0

20

318

244

0

38

319

233/6

0

56

320

229/2

0

83

321

224

0

69

322

220

0

07

323

218

0

40

324

218/A

0

01

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5649

325

192/12

0

19

326

192/11

0

04

327

192/10

0

05

328

192/8

0

05

329

192/7

0

02

330

192/5

0

16

331

192/6

0

03

332

189/4

0

06

333

189/3

0

06

334

189/2

0

32

335

185/4

0

06

336

185/5

0

02

337

185/6

0

20

338

185/17

0

01

339

185/7

0

07

340

185/8

0

06

341

185/9

0

11

342

185/10

0

01

343

185/1

0

12

344

185/11

0

01

345

183/1

0

66

346

6. Ravipalle-109

Garugubilli

243/2

0

02

347

7. Pedduru-86

Garugubilli

173/28

0

04

348

175/12

0

18

349

175/11

0

18

350

175/10

0

08

351

175/9

0

12

352

175/8

0

19

353

176/1

0

62

354

178

0

16

355

186/8

0

02

356

186/9

0

11

357

186/7

0

01

358

187/30

0

06

359

187/29

0

19

360

187/14

0

03

361

187/13

0

07

362

187/9

0

19

363

187/8

0

04

364

187/5

0

03

5650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

365

187/3

0

04

366

187/4

0

03

367

188/5

0

02

368

188/4

0

06

369

188/2

0

09

370

188/1

0

11

371

37/6

0

04

372

36/12

0

13

373

36/10

0

12

374

36/9

0

01

375

36/8

0

14

376

76/10

0

09

377

76/8

0

11

378

76/9

0

09

379

82

0

02

380

75

0

05

381

72/1A

0

32

382

43/2

0

06

383

43/3

0

06

384

43/5

0

81

385

44/14

0

05

386

44/11

0

10

387

44/12

0

03

388

44/10

0

06

389

44/9

0

08

390

44/8

0

08

391

69/2I

0

06

392

69/2G

0

06

393

69/2E

0

07

394

69/2D

0

07

395

69/2A

0

13

396

67/4D

0

11

397

67/4C

0

07

398

67/4B

0

13

399

67/2

0

21

400

66

0

04

401

8. Sivarampuram

Pedduru Dari-107

Garugubilli

200/5

0

16

402

200/6

0

15

403

201/5

0

08

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5651

404

201/4

0

14

405

201/6

0

02

406

201/3

0

09

407

201/2

0

03

408

201/1

0

03

409

202/7

0

06

410

202/6

0

07

411

202/5

0

17

412

227/21

0

06

413

227/20

0

07

414

227/19

0

14

415

228

0

32

416

226/3

0

01

417

226/2

0

02

418

225

0

03

419

219/16

0

02

420

9. Sivvam-108

Garugubilli

221/11

0

08

421

221/10

0

08

422

221/8

0

03

423

221/9

0

12

424

221/4

0

03

425

221/3

0

02

426

221/2

0

09

427

221/1

0

08

428

220/21

0

07

429

220/18

0

08

430

220/17

0

04

431

220/16

0

04

432

220/6

0

05

433

220/5

0

04

434

220/4

0

04

435

220/3

0

03

436

220/2

0

06

437

220/1

0

07

438

219/16

0

02

439

219/17

0

17

440

219/14

0

01

441

219/13

0

21

442

219/23

0

03

443

219/4

0

15

5652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

444

219/2

0

05

445

219/1

0

01

446

77/5

0

14

447

77/4

0

01

448

77/12

0

17

449

76/13

0

15

450

76/11

0

01

451

76/12

0

02

452

76/10

0

02

453

76/14

0

15

454

76/5

0

11

455

76/4

0

07

456

76/15

0

05

457

75/3

0

17

458

75/2

0

14

459

75/1

0

22

460

10. Polinaiduvalasa-106

Garugubilli

275/3

0

11

461

275/5

0

05

462

274/2

0

22

463

274/1

0

02

464

273/8

0

23

465

273/7

0

26

466

273/6

0

24

467

273/4

0

12

468

273/3

0

02

469

308/5

0

02

470

266

1

32

471

307/7

0

18

472

307/6

0

03

473

307/8

0

04

474

307/11

0

02

475

307/10

0

03

476

307/12

0

04

477

307/15

0

03

478

307/13

0

03

479

238/13

0

06

480

238/12

0

06

481

238/8

0

05

482

238/7

0

06

483

238/1

0

03

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5653

484

306/9

0

01

485

306/8

0

08

486

306/6

0

10

487

306/5

0

01

488

306/7

0

01

489

236/16

0

09

490

236/14

0

11

491

236/9

0

02

492

236/11

0

04

493

236/10

0

06

494

236/12

0

01

495

236/2

0

11

496

236/1

0

02

497

11. Gottivalasa-103

Garugubilli

189/16

0

04

498

189/5

0

23

499

188/13

0

05

500

188/12

0

06

501

155/24

0

09

502

155/23

0

03

503

155/13

0

02

504

155/12

0

13

505

155/11

0

05

506

155/2

0

06

507

187/17

0

02

508

187/15

0

02

509

187/14

0

13

510

187/13

0

02

511

187/11

0

05

512

187/6

0

06

513

187/7

0

08

514

187/2

0

04

515

187/8

0

02

516

187/1

0

11

517

157/14

0

02

518

158/7C

0

12

519

158/7B

0

13

520

158/6

0

05

521

158/4A

0

05

522

158/5

0

07

523

158/4B

0

06

5654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

524

158/2B

0

02

525

159/24

0

08

526

159/23

0

01

527

159/22

0

03

528

159/17

0

01

529

159/18

0

13

530

159/14

0

02

531

160/16

0

02

532

160/15

0

01

533

160/14

0

15

534

160/13

0

05

535

160/11

0

04

536

160/10

0

14

537

161/15

0

02

538

161/5

0

05

539

161/4

0

06

540

161/6

0

01

541

161/3

0

13

542

161/1

0

05

543

163/4

0

03

544

163/3

0

11

545

163/2

0

04

546

163/1

0

28

547

162/16

0

03

548

162/15

0

05

549

162/14

0

06

550

162/13

0

08

551

162/9

0

07

552

162/10

0

02

553

162/7

0

04

554

162/6

0

05

555

162/3

0

05

556

162/1

0

11

557

172

0

04

558

171

0

12

559

170/1

0

21

560

173/4

0

58

561

12. Sambannavalasa-35

Garugubilli

90/1

0

55

562

90/1P

0

14

563

63/2

0

03

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5655

564

63/3

0

23

565

63/4

0

15

566

65/2

0

05

567

65/1

0

08

568

64/2

0

02

569

59/20

0

05

570

59/22B

0

03

571

59/22A

0

04

572

59/21

0

09

573

59/17

0

02

574

59/14

0

02

575

66/10

0

05

576

66/9A

0

06

577

66/8

0

02

578

66/1A

0

11

579

58/19

0

04

580

58/13

0

13

581

58/12

0

03

582

55/1

0

06

583

56/1

0

02

584

54/2

0

04

585

54/19

0

06

586

54/3

0

03

587

53

0

06

588

52/3

0

11

589

52/5

0

01

590

52/4

0

17

591

52/2

0

12

592

50/2

0

12

593

50/1

0

09

594

49

0

26

595

48

0

25

596

13. Naguru-113

Garugubilli

128

0

25

597

116/5

0

10

598

116/7

0

02

599

116/6

0

22

600

120/2A

0

24

601

117/9

0

05

602

117/3

0

33

603

112

0

51

5656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

604

110/1

0

11

605

107/3

0

38

606

107/2

0

02

607

105/19

0

02

608

105/17A

0

16

609

105/18

0

09

610

105/15A

0

01

611

105/13

0

01

612

105/14

0

11

613

105/6A

0

06

614

105/5A

0

07

615

105/4A

0

08

616

105/3A

0

06

617

105/2A

0

02

618

106/3

0

18

619

94/17

0

07

620

94/5

0

03

621

94/4

0

02

622

94/3

0

04

623

94/1

0

05

624

14. Santhoshapuram-

102

Garugubilli

158/2

0

02

625

158/1

0

29

626

79/5

0

01

627

79/4

0

11

628

79/3

0

08

629

79/7

0

15

630

79/10

0

09

631

79/9

0

16

632

79/17

0

02

633

78/1

0

07

634

78/2

0

03

635

76/5

0

32

636

76/30

0

02

637

76/29

0

01

638

76/23

0

16

639

76/22

0

02

640

76/24

0

01

641

76/19

0

12

642

76/3

0

14

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5657

643

75/3

0

23

644

75/2

0

14

645

73

0

24

646

72/6

0

15

647

67/10

0

18

648

67/9

0

05

649

67/8

0

01

650

67/6

0

21

651

67/5

0

02

652

68/16

0

06

653

68/12

0

11

654

68/11

0

17

655

51/18

0

06

656

51/15

0

03

657

51/17

0

02

658

51/16

0

14

659

51/25

0

04

660

51/13

0

03

661

51/6

0

07

662

51/7

0

14

663

51/8

0

02

664

51/3

0

11

665

51/2

0

08

666

51/1

0

06

667

46/1

0

06

668

47/17

0

06

669

47/15

0

03

670

47/7

0

43

671

47/6

0

04

672

47/5

0

30

673

41/1

0

30

674

41/2

0

26

675

41/3A

0

42

676

15. Kuduma-72

Jiyyammavalasa

479

0

15

677

16. Gauripuram-84

Jiyyammavalasa

49

0

29

678

44/8B

0

08

679

44/8A

0

11

680

44/4A

0

02

681

44/1F

0

14

682

44/1E

0

07

5658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

683

44/1D

0

08

684

43/5G

0

08

685

43/5F

0

04

686

43/5E

0

08

687

43/5D

0

08

688

43/4D

0

14

689

43/4C

0

21

690

43/4E

0

02

691

43/3B

0

07

692

43/2B

0

06

693

43/2A

0

02

694

43/1

0

06

695

42/1A

0

17

696

20/7

0

13

697

20/8

0

09

698

20/9

0

09

699

20/4

0

02

700

20/3

0

08

701

20/11A

0

03

702

19/13A

0

11

703

19/8

0

07

704

19/10

0

02

705

19/9

0

02

706

19/2

0

08

707

18/6B

0

06

708

18/6A

0

06

709

18/5B

0

07

710

18/5A

0

08

711

18/4

0

02

712

17. Gangarajupuram-86

Garugubilli

7/17

0

16

713

7/16

0

13

714

7/11

0

03

715

18. Thotapalle-87

Garugubilli

177/7B

0

01

716

177/8D

0

04

717

177/8C

0

11

718

177/6

0

01

719

176/2

0

17

720

174/11

0

08

721

174/10

0

08

722

174/8

0

08

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5659

723

174/7

0

05

724

174/6

0

04

725

174/1

0

39

726

175/5

0

02

727

172/4

0

30

728

172/5

0

02

729

164/8

0

03

730

164/7

0

07

731

164/9

0

11

732

164/3

0

09

733

164/1B

0

08

734

163/5B

0

07

735

163/4B

0

06

736

163/4A

0

04

737

162/4B

0

02

738

162/13A

0

05

739

162/12

0

02

740

162/4A

0

18

741

162/2

0

02

742

162/1

0

07

743

161/3

0

16

744

32/10B

0

07

745

32/11A

0

07

746

32/9B

0

07

747

32/7A

0

08

748

32/4B

0

08

749

32/5A

0

08

750

30/7

0

07

751

30/9

0

11

752

30/6C

0

01

753

30/10

0

24

754

30/3B

0

13

755

22/6

0

02

756

22/5

0

17

757

22/4

0

08

758

22/3

0

04

759

29/14

0

04

760

23/22

0

05

761

23/19

0

07

762

23/21

0

02

5660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

763

23/20

0

13

764

23/15

0

02

765

23/16

0

05

766

23/14

0

09

767

23/10

0

01

768

23/13

0

06

769

25/15

0

05

770

25/14

0

12

771

25/13

0

01

772

25/3

0

02

773

25/4

0

13

774

25/2

0

15

775

12/11

0

09

776

12/6B

0

11

777

12/10

0

07

778

12/5B

0

13

779

12/1C

0

02

780

11/11B

0

08

781

11/10

0

30

782

10/18

0

08

783

10/16

0

05

784

10/17

0

03

785

10/1

0

20

786

10/15

0

02

787

10/6

0

02

788

10/4

0

03

789

10/3

0

08

790

9/21A

0

11

791

9/11A

0

09

792

9/10A

0

03

793

19. Singanapuram

Jiyyammavalasa

156/19

0

08

794

156/18

0

09

795

156/13C

0

13

796

156/11B

0

16

797

156/9A

0

03

798

156/10A1

0

02

799

156/10A2

0

05

800

156/2B

0

06

801

156/3A

0

09

802

156/4A

0

02

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5661

803

156/2A

0

02

804

156/1

0

12

805

20. Chintala Belagam-

68

Jiyyammavalasa

74/14B

0

05

806

74/14

0

03

807

74/13

0

02

808

74/12

0

08

809

74/10C

0

02

810

74/10B

0

05

811

74/10A

0

08

812

74/4

0

04

813

74/3

0

14

814

74/1

0

08

815

74/2

0

06

816

72/20

0

02

817

72/19

0

07

818

72/11B

0

01

819

72/12

0

08

820

72/13

0

11

821

72/9B

0

08

822

72/9A

0

01

823

72/8

0

06

824

72/3

0

13

825

72/2

0

01

826

72/1B

0

12

827

72/1A

0

08

828

71/6

0

09

829

71/4C

0

01

830

71/4B

0

05

831

71/4A

0

13

832

56/13

0

01

833

56/12

0

12

834

56/11

0

15

835

56/5

0

01

836

56/2

0

08

837

56/3

0

01

838

55

0

08

839

54/9

0

02

840

54/8

0

18

841

54/6

0

15

5662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

842

54/3

0

20

843

54/2

0

25

844

53

0

41

845

21. Gijaba-77

Garugubilli

86/8

0

02

846

86/7

0

02

847

86/6

0

01

848

22. Makhana Haripuram

Jiyyammavalasa

120/6F

0

02

849

120/6G

0

05

850

120/9

0

28

851

121/13A

0

01

852

121/12

0

12

853

121/4

0

06

854

121/5

0

14

855

121/6

0

15

856

121/8

0

21

857

89/5

0

24

858

89/3

0

11

859

89/4A

0

05

860

89/2

0

08

861

89/1

0

03

862

88/3

0

02

863

88/2

0

11

864

88/1B

0

07

865

88/1A

0

18

866

80/12

0

14

867

80/11E

0

01

868

79/2H

0

14

869

79/2G

0

04

870

79/1H

0

04

871

79/1G

0

08

872

79/1F

0

06

873

79/1E

0

05

874

79/1D

0

03

875

79/1C

0

04

876

79/1B

0

04

877

79/1A

0

04

878

23. Basangi-76

Jiyyammavalasa

85/8

0

05

879

85/7

0

29

880

85/10

0

03

881

85/11

0

03

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5663

882

85/14

0

14

883

86/15

0

06

884

86/12

0

05

885

86/14

0

01

886

86/7

0

04

887

86/13

0

01

888

86/5

0

02

889

86/6

0

01

890

112/15A

0

01

891

112/14

0

13

892

110/14

0

06

893

110/12

0

06

894

110/13

0

18

895

111/6

0

20

896

111/2

0

09

897

111/3

0

02

898

111/1

0

18

899

107/12

0

13

900

107/11

0

05

901

107/10

0

06

902

107/7

0

06

903

107/6

0

03

904

107/3

0

04

905

94/1

0

30

906

97/1B

0

14

907

97/2A

0

06

908

97/6

0

19

909

97/3

0

02

910

24. Gourammapeta-34

Jiyyammavalasa

85/2

0

11

911

86/7

0

15

912

86/3

0

07

913

86/2

0

26

914

86/1

0

02

915

84/5

0

34

916

72/10B

0

08

917

72/9

0

09

918

72/8

0

12

919

72/6

0

17

920

72/7

0

08

921

72/2

0

17

5664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

922

72/1

0

08

923

74/12

0

03

924

70/7D

0

08

925

70/7C

0

07

926

70/7A

0

13

927

70/6A

0

14

928

70/5

0

13

929

23/18

0

03

930

23/16

0

03

931

23/6

0

17

932

23/5

0

30

933

19/12

0

01

934

19/11

0

18

935

19/8

0

01

936

19/9

0

16

937

19/10

0

05

938

19/1

0

13

939

18/5

0

04

940

18/9

0

04

941

18/6

0

08

942

18/7

0

15

943

18/8

0

02

944

18/1

0

01

945

17

0

16

946

25. Bhatlabhadra-27

Jiyyammavalasa

75/7

0

17

947

75/5

0

05

948

75/4

0

13

949

75/3

0

08

950

75/2

0

02

951

75/1

0

06

952

76/1

0

50

953

111/5

0

18

954

111/1B

0

07

955

77/2

0

26

956

110/3

0

08

957

78/3

0

34

958

79

0

06

959

82/5

0

01

960

82/1

0

37

961

82/4

0

04

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5665

962

89

0

17

963

88/5

0

23

964

88/6

0

01

965

88/3

0

17

966

88/1

0

22

967

87/15C

0

39

968

87/16

0

01

969

87/15B

0

13

970

87/13

0

23

971

87/14

0

03

972

92/4

0

06

973

92/5B

0

09

974

92/3

0

09

975

93/3

0

25

976

94/2

0

09

977

94/1C

0

09

978

94/1D

0

02

979

94/1B

0

07

980

94/1A

0

12

981

7

0

04

982

95/9

0

02

983

6/2

0

27

984

6/2A1

0

36

985

6/1

0

04

986

5/1

0

02

987

26. Kitsada-14

Kurupam

90/1

0

47

988

89/7A

0

12

989

89/5

0

07

990

89/4

0

07

991

89/3

0

12

992

89/2

0

12

993

87/2B

0

24

994

87/2A

0

17

995

86/3D

0

03

996

86/4D

0

08

997

86/4C

0

11

998

86/4B

0

05

999

86/3C

0

03

1000

86/3B

0

11

1001

86/4A

0

03

5666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1002

84/6B

0

05

1003

84/6C

0

08

1004

84/5A

0

20

1005

84/5B

0

02

1006

84/4C

0

05

1007

84/1

0

04

1008

79/2

0

18

1009

81/3

0

26

1010

81/2

0

02

1011

81/1

0

02

1012

82/1E

0

12

1013

82/1D

0

20

1014

83/3

0

06

1015

83/2B

0

06

1016

83/2A

0

28

1017

83/1

0

18

1018

27. Dalayipeta-25

Komarada

143

0

10

1019

142/2

0

33

1020

141/3

0

30

1021

141/2

0

11

1022

140/7

0

21

1023

140/4

0

02

1024

140/3

0

12

1025

115/2

0

14

1026

115/1

0

01

1027

114

0

32

1028

113/9A

0

24

1029

112/9B

0

01

1030

112/7

0

06

1031

112/6

0

04

1032

112/5B

0

15

1033

112/3

0

15

1034

49

0

06

1035

50

0

15

1036

110/1A

0

04

1037

110/2

0

09

1038

108/2B

0

10

1039

108/1B

0

06

1040

108/5G

0

03

1041

108/5F

0

02

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5667

1042

108/5E

0

04

1043

108/5D

0

03

1044

108/5C

0

05

1045

108/5B

0

04

1046

108/5A

0

04

1047

107

1

11

1048

73

0

18

1049

74/2G

0

11

1050

74/2F

0

12

1051

74/2E

0

15

1052

74/2B

0

13

1053

74/1

0

09

1054

76/2

0

38

1055

78/3

0

16

1056

78/2

0

16

1057

78/1

0

17

1058

79/2

0

17

1059

80/2

0

30

1060

81

0

17

1061

81/A

0

08

1062

82/2B

0

13

1063

82/1

0

14

1064

83/1

0

13

1065

83/2

0

15

1066

83/3

0

04

1067

83/5

0

13

1068

85/2

0

17

1069

86/3

0

13

1070

88/4J

0

13

1071

88/4E

0

13

1072

88/4C

0

15

1073

88/4B

0

07

1074

88/4A

0

12

1075

88/1

0

16

1076

87/4C

0

04

1077

28. Madalangi-15

Komarada

128/2A

0

07

1078

128/1H

0

08

1079

128/1G

0

05

1080

128/1F

0

16

1081

127/9A

0

06

5668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1082

127/9B

0

06

1083

127/8

0

14

1084

127/7

0

02

1085

127/5A

0

09

1086

126/1J

0

02

1087

126/1I

0

08

1088

126/1H

0

13

1089

126/1G

0

22

1090

123/2

0

08

1091

123/2A

0

08

1092

123/1

0

23

1093

122/11

0

14

1094

29. Thodumu-105

Komarada

124/11

0

09

1095

124/10

0

02

1096

124/8

0

08

1097

124/7

0

13

1098

122/6

0

05

1099

122/7

0

05

1100

122/5

0

11

1101

122/1

0

06

1102

122/3

0

09

1103

122/2

0

12

1104

120/3

0

25

1105

120/2

0

27

1106

119/8

0

02

1107

119/7

0

04

1108

119/6

0

04

1109

119/1

0

04

1110

117/4

0

05

1111

117/5

0

05

1112

117/7

0

19

1113

117/6

0

02

1114

117/16

0

04

1115

116/13

0

19

1116

116/11

0

01

1117

116/10

0

11

1118

114

0

05

1119

113/1

0

39

1120

111/9

0

01

1121

111/6

0

26

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5669

1122

111/5

0

11

1123

98

0

04

1124

95/7

0

24

1125

95/5

0

02

1126

95/6

0

06

1127

94/11

0

04

1128

94/5

0

04

1129

94/4

0

05

1130

94/3

0

13

1131

94/2

0

02

1132

92/9

0

06

1133

92/5

0

12

1134

92/6

0

12

1135

92/3

0

12

1136

92/2

0

02

1137

92/1

0

10

1138

89/5

0

13

1139

90/13

0

38

1140

87/5

0

41

1141

87/2

0

01

1142

87/1

0

11

1143

30. Rayapuram-15

Komarada

81

0

46

1144

63/10C

0

02

1145

63/10B

0

17

1146

63/10A

0

02

1147

63/8

0

05

1148

63/7

0

07

1149

63/2

0

02

1150

65/3J

0

17

1151

65/3I

0

06

1152

65/3H

0

08

1153

65/3G

0

08

1154

65/3F

0

09

1155

65/3E

0

02

1156

65/2

0

05

1157

65/1C

0

19

1158

65/1A

0

08

1159

60

0

04

1160

59/2

0

03

1161

59/1

0

18

5670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1162

58/3B

0

03

1163

36/1K

0

14

1164

35/7

0

20

1165

35/6

0

01

1166

34/3

0

38

1167

33/4C

0

14

1168

33/4B

0

09

1169

33/2

0

30

1170

32/10

0

08

1171

27/3F

0

02

1172

27/3E

0

10

1173

27/3D

0

02

1174

27/3C

0

02

1175

27/3B

0

14

1176

27/3A

0

04

1177

27/1L

0

08

1178

27/2L

0

02

1179

27/1K

0

07

1180

27/1I

0

02

1181

27/1J

0

06

1182

27/1G

0

02

1183

27/1H

0

05

1184

27/1C

0

12

1185

27/1B

0

11

1186

27/1A

0

03

1187

28/3

0

03

1188

15/5

0

20

1189

15/4

0

09

1190

15/3

0

08

1191

15/2

0

05

1192

15/1

0

16

1193

14/15

0

06

1194

14/11

0

08

1195

14/12

0

09

1196

14/10

0

01

1197

14/9

0

08

1198

14/1D

0

07

1199

14/1C

0

02

1200

31. Kottu-92

Komarada

36/1

0

17

1201

33/1

0

47

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5671

1202

32

0

06

1203

32. Kemisila-77

Komarada

124/1-B

0

03

1204

124/1-C

0

10

1205

124/1-D

0

04

1206

124/1-E

0

05

1207

124/1-F

0

10

1208

124/1-A

0

10

1209

122/5

0

18

1210

122/4

0

03

1211

122/3

0

19

1212

122/2

0

26

1213

122/1

0

07

1214

118/10

0

07

1215

118/17

0

02

1216

118/11

0

02

1217

118/9

0

06

1218

118/4

0

01

1219

118/6

0

02

1220

118/5-A

0

04

1221

118/5B

0

04

1222

118/1

0

18

1223

117

0

18

1224

119/1

0

06

1225

116/1

0

06

1226

116/2

0

50

1227

111/1

0

20

1228

112

0

66

1229

113

0

02

1230

104/1

0

07

1231

102/1J

0

14

1232

102/1I

0

09

1233

102/1H

0

04

1234

103

0

15

1235

33. Labesu-115

Komarada

7

0

36

1236

6/2

0

51

1237

4/1

0

76

1238

2/3

0

01

1239

2/1

0

14

1240

2/2

0

44

1241

34. Korisila-5

Komarada

92/1

0

49

5672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1242

96/2

0

17

1243

93/1

0

04

1244

95/8

0

32

1245

95/6

0

25

1246

95/5

0

15

1247

95/4

0

24

1248

74/3

0

27

1249

74/1

0

27

1250

75

0

11

1251

72

0

03

1252

76/4A

0

28

1253

76/3

0

12

1254

76/2

0

15

1255

71/3A

0

09

1256

71/3B

0

12

1257

71/2

0

19

1258

69/6

0

40

1259

69/5

0

13

1260

69/1

0

17

1261

69/4

0

03

1262

69/2

0

07

1263

63/7

0

06

1264

63/6

0

21

1265

63/5

0

09

1266

63/4

0

04

1267

63/2

0

11

1268

63/1

0

23

1269

62/9

0

03

1270

64/15

0

06

1271

64/12

0

02

1272

64/14

0

02

1273

64/13

0

06

1274

64/10

0

03

1275

64/9

0

02

1276

64/7

0

02

1277

45/6

0

07

1278

45/5

0

08

1279

45/7

0

02

1280

46/6F

0

27

1281

46/6D

0

09

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5673

1282

46/1B

0

03

1283

46/6C

0

05

1284

46/6B

0

03

1285

44

0

38

1286

21/6

0

21

1287

21/5

0

05

1288

21/4

0

11

1289

21/3

0

07

1290

21/2

0

15

1291

39/6

0

09

1292

39/5

0

09

1293

39/4

0

13

1294

39/3

0

03

1295

22/3

0

03

1296

22/1

0

09

1297

38

0

83

1298

37/1

0

02

1299

28/4

0

06

1300

28/5A

0

07

1301

28/2F

0

06

1302

28/2G

0

02

1303

1

01

86

[F. No. R-11025(11)/12/2018-OR-I/E-25587]

S. S. SINGH, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 18 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1470.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

esa

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-I,ds iapkV (

45/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल 20012/441/2000- vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2025

S.O. 1470.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 18/07/2025.

[No. L-20012/441/2000– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

5674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

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

Reference Case No. 45/2003

Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri Sri N. Nath, O.S. Legal (HQ).

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 02/07/2025

AWARD.

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

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

Order No.L-20012/441/2000-IR(C-I) dated 29/05/2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

the employer i.e. management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Central Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“क्या जबहार कोजलयरी कामगार यूजनयन की भारत कोककग कोल जलजमटेड, बस्ट्ताकोला क्षेत्र के प्रबंधतंत्र

से माुँग दक श्री गुद्दू ृासवान एवं सूची में ददए गए ऄन्य 175 कमडकारों को जनयजमत दकया जाये ईजचत

एवं न्यायसंगत हज? यदद हाुँ तो कमडकार दकस राहत के ृात्र हैं तथा दकस तारीख से?”

LIST OF THE WORKMEN

1. Guddu Paswan

2. Badri Bhuia

3. Narendra Bhuia

4. Shankar Bhuia

5. Suresh Bhuia

6. Dinesh Bhuia

7. Sanjay Burma

8. Ganesh Bagti

9. Shankar Saw

10. Arjun Nishad

11. Sunil Bouri

12. Suraj Bouri

13. Mahendra Prasad

14. Bhagirath Modi

15. Gobardhan Turi

16. Madan Bouri

17. Naresh Nishad

18. Mustaq Alam

19. Sarju Bhuia

20. Ramu Bhuia

21. Mahesh Bhuia

22. Chamanlal Bhuia

23. Basudeo Bhuia

24. Kartik Bhuia

25. Umesh Bhuia

26. Jagarnath Bhuia

27. Surendra Burma

28. Lakshman Bhuia

29. Rajesh Kumar Bouri

30. Bharat Bhuia

31. Inder Nishad

32. Narayan Bhuia

33. Ganesh Bhuia

34. Bijoy Bhuia

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5675

35. Sanichar Bhuia

36. Ramchandra Nishad

37. Sarju Bhuia 2 No.

38. Dilip Mandal

39. Maksudan Nishad

40. Sikandar Rajak

41. Satendra Mahato

42. Badri Pasi

43. Illegible

44. Sonu Turi

45. Manik Bouri

46. Madhu Mallik

47. Babu Khan

48. Illegible

49. Illegible

50. Parsuran Beldar

51. Bhola Nishad

52. Illegible

53. Harsu Bhuia

54. Bala Bouri

55. Suresh Paswan

56. Jaimurat Paswan

57. Illegible

58. Uttam Bouri

59. Mahabir Roy

60. Rajdip Saw

61. Sudama Bouri

62. Jagdish Bhuia 2 No.

63. Bulla Bhuia

64. Rajesh Kumar

65. Ram Modi

66. Jagdish Modi

67. Subhash Bouri

68. Hema Bouri

69. Ganesh Bouri

70. Ram Pado Rajwar

71. Ramji Singh

72. Kalipada Bouri

73. Suresh Bhuia No.1

74. Mandhan Bhuia

75. Ganesh Bhuia 1 No.

76. Sanjit Rawani

77. Bullet Bhuia

78. Prakash Kumar

79. Jhalar Kewat

80. Raju Bouri

81. Dara Bouri

82. Dharmendar Bhuia

83. Ram Prasad Mallick

84. Rajendra Paswan

85. Shiv Shankar Paswan

86. Ajay Kumar Kar

87. Chandreshwar Paswan

88. Shakti Singh

89. Bangali Bhuia

90. Binoy Rawani

91. Ram Sagar Nishad

92. Basanti Bhuini

93. Lilawati Bhuini

94. Gitwa Bhuini

95. Champa Bhuini

96. Shanti Bhuini

97. Saro Bhuini

98. Lakshmi Bhuini

99. Radha Modi

100. Dasi Bourin

101. Champa Bourin

102. Joba Bourin

103. Sulochana Bourin

104. Lagni Dusadhin

105. Badna Turi

106. Koushalya Bhuini

107. Jainun Khatoon

108. Lakshminia Devi

109. Rampati Devi

110. Gitwa Bhuini 2 No.

111. Begni Bhuini

112. Mangli Bhuini

113. Rukmani Devi

114. Illegible

115. Kamli Turin

116. Jagia Bhuini

5676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

117. Fulmoni Bagti

118. Manju Malahin

119. Manju Bourin

120. Kali Dasi Bourin

121. Munia Devi

122. Lilwa Bhuini 2 No.

123. Shanti Loharin

124. Lakhia Loharin

125. Mangli Roy

126. Rajmati Devi

127. Lakshmi Mallahin

128. Kamla Rawani

129. Rasona Devi

130. Lilwa Bhuini No.1

131. Mina Devi

132. Uganti Bhuini

133. Illegible

134. Suma Bhuini

135. Asha Saw

136. Mangli Bhuini No.1

137. Uma Hari

138. Lachhwa Devi

139. Gitwa Bhuini No.1

140. Rajni Devi

141. Manju Mishra

142. Reshma Bhuini

143. Anarwa Devi

144. Mina Mallahin

145. Champa Beldarin

146. Jaiwanti Bhuini

147. Sumanti Bhuini

148. Kaushalya Mallahin

149. Piwaria Bhuini

150. Tetri Bhuini

151. Mahangi Bhuini

152. Rina Devi

153. Not available

154. Not available

155. Not available

156. Not available

157. Not available

158. Not available

159. Not available

160. Not available

161. Not available

162. Not available

163. Asha Bhuini

164. Pramila Saw

165. Angira Bhuini

166. Parwati Degi

167. Rabindra Kumar

168. Mahendra Kumar

169. Jiten Bhuia

170. Hira Bhuia

171. Som Nath Nishad

172. Nand Lal Paswan

173. Manoj Rawani

174. Sudhir Bhuia

175. Dinesh Ram

176. Ajay Paswan

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/441/2000-IR(C-I) dated 29/05/2003 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 45 of 2003 was registered on 16.06.2003

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

along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. After issuance of regd. notice, written statement has been filed by Sri K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate on behalf

of the workmen. Sri U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate appeared from the side of the management and filed his letter of

authority on 28.08.2003. It further transpires that written statement cum rejoinder has been filed by the

management but when the case record was put up after a long gap, registered notices were again sent but the

registered post was returned with remarks ―अधूरा पता वापस‖ and thereafter no step was taken from the side of the

workmen. Though on 13.06.2025, Sri N. Nath, O.S Legal (HQ) appeared from the side of the management but the

workmen never appeared before the Tribunal since 13.02.2006.

4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpires that the workmen never appeared before this Tribunal for

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5677

a period of 19 years which shows that the workmen have lost their interest in this case and therefore, for the ends

of justice, this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5. Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 24 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1471.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa

–

सह

–

] हजदराबाद ds iapkV (ृहचान

37/2015) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल 22012/26/2015- vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 24th July, 2025

S.O. 1471.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 37/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, HYDERABAD as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

Management of S.C.C.Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23/07/2025.

[No. L-22012/26/2015– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 26th day of June, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 37/2015

Between:

Sri Jellala Balaiah,

D.No.19-81, Alluri Seetharamanagar,

Ramakrishnapur – 504301.

Mandamarri (M), Adilabad Distt.

….. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Bellampally Area, Goleti Township-504 292.

Adilabad Distt.

…. Respondent

5678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/26/2015– IR(CM.II)

dated 18.6.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and their workman.The reference

is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area,

Goleti Township (P.O.), Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Jellala Balaiah, Ex-Badli

Filler, Goleti-1 Inc, SCCo. Ltd., Bellampalli Area with effect from 19.5.2008 is justified or not? If not, to

what relief the applicant is entitled for?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No.37/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:-

It is submitted that Petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on l6.9.2006 in the Respondent company. It is

submitted that from the date of appointment, Petitioner was regular to his duties and performing duties upto the

satisfaction of one and all. While the matters stood thus, charge sheet dt.9.2.2008 was issued alleging that he

remained absent during the year 2007, as such, it amounts to misconduct under company's standing order

No.25.25. Petitioner submitted his explanation dt.4.3.2008. However, without considering any of the submissions

made by him, an enquiry was conducted with a predetermined notion, as if Petitioner absented for duties willfully.

During the enquiry it was categorically pleaded that, as Petitioner was suffering with ill-health and also as his

uncle (Father s brother) passed away, hence he could not be regular to duties. In fact, he was not given any

opportunity much less valid in nature. Basing on such lop sided enquiry, enquiry officer held the charges as

proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dt.29/3 1-03-2008, was issued to Petitioner and Petitioner submitted his

reply. But, without considering any of the submissions made, basing on the erroneous findings of the enquiry

officer, Petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 19.5.2008 vide office order dt. 17/19.5.2008. It is

submitted that during the course of enquiry, Petitioner categorically pleaded his inability to be regular to duty, was

only on account of the ill health as well as uncle of the Petitioner passed away during that time. Further, he also

pleaded that, he will attend for duty without absence in future. Unfortunately, without considering any of the above

submissions, Petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 19.5.2008 vide office order dt.17/19.5.2008. It is

submitted that the action of the Respondent in dismissing from service is wholly illegal, arbitrary violative of

principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer grossly erred in holding the charges as proved. The whole enquiry

was conducted in a routine and mechanical manner with a predetermined intention to somehow or the other, put

me to extreme hardship of dismissal from service. Before issuing the impugned order of dismissal, approval of

competent authority was not obtained, as per the standing orders. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner to

produce witnesses on his behalf. Had any opportunity was given to him to produce witnesses on my behalf, after

explaining the procedure of enquiry, Petitioner could have produced witnesses on my behalf, thereby the necessity

to issue the impugned order of dismissal could have been avoided. Neither the findings of the Enquiry Officer,

nor the impugned order does not give any reasons, much less 'valid in nature. The enquiry officer relied upon the

evidence of irrelevant witnesses, who have no personal knowledge of the charge alleged against the Petitioner.

Though, enquiry officer relied upon several documents to substantiate the charges, none of those documents either

shown or furnished to him either before or during the course of enquiry. Even otherwise also, even the marked

documents do not establish the charge alleged against him. The Respondent failed to apply his mind

independently while issuing the impugned office order of dismissal dt.17/19-05-2008, as he did not delve into the

alleged misconduct and the punishment proposed to be inflicted on the Petitioner. Before commencement of

enquiry, the procedure of enquiry was not explained and Petitioner was not offered the assistance of any defense

assistance. Neither the proceedings of enquiry were conducted in the language known to the Petitioner nor was

explained in the language known to him. In fact, as per the instructions issued by the Respondent company, the

proceedings of enquiry are to be conducted in the language known to the delinquent employee. The findings of the

enquiry officer are not only contrary to the evidence on record, but also self-contradictory. The findings of the

Disciplinary Authority are outside the scope of charge sheet. It is further submitted that Petitioner is the sole

breadwinner of his family. As a result of dismissal, his whole family rendered without any livelihood. It is

submitted that for the reasons mentioned above, the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, excessive

and disproportionate to the charges alleged. Before imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service, the

Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered the issue of imposing any minor penalty. It is prayed for

indulgence of this Hon'ble Court to modify the punishment of dismissal, to that of any other lesser penalty. It is

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5679

submitted that a conciliation was moved before the conciliation officer which ended in failure. It is therefore

prayed that to set aside the dismissal order and direct the Respondent for reinstatement of the Petitioner with all

consequential benefits.

3.

Respondent filed counter denying the averments of the Petitioner as under:

It is submitted that Petitioner was dismissed from the services of the Respondent Company on proved charge of

absenteeism vide Letter No.BPA/PER/129/1739, dated 19.5.2008 with immediate effect. It is apparently clear

that there is an abnormal delay of about 6 years in raising the dispute by the Petitioner and therefore the Petition is

liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may decide the

delay in raising the dispute as a preliminary issue. It is submitted that the delinquent workman was dismissed on

proved charges after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry duly following the Principles of Natural Justice. It is

submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed 16.09.2006 as a Badli Filler at Goleti-1 incline Bellampalli

Area. While he was working in Goleti-1 Incline, Bellampalli Area, he had put in just 68 musters during the

calendar year 2007 and remained absent to duties unauthorisedly on all other days in the year, which constituted

misconduct under Company's Standing Orders No.25.25 and 25.31 for the misconduct committed by him. It is

submitted that the Petitioner was issued a Charge Sheet No.BPAGLT.1/R8/616 DATED 09.02.2008 under

Company's Standing Orders 25.25 and 25.31 for his habitual absenteeism and absence from duty without

sanctioned leave or sufficient cause during the year 2007. In receipt of Charge sheet, Petitioner submitted the

explanation to the charge sheet. It is submitted that Petitioner was served with a letter advising him to appear for

enquiry at Goleti-1 incline Bellampalli Area on 05.03.2008 with all documents and witnesses. Accordingly,

Petitioner appeared before enquiry officer and participated in the enquiry proceedings without any pretext what so

ever in nature and he was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case. It is submitted that on the basis of

evidence on record the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against Petitioner

were proved under Company's Standing orders No.25.25. and 25.31. It is submitted that the Disciplinary

Authority after going through the entire Enquiry Proceedings, and after evaluating all the evidence on record,

concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Since the charges levelled and proved in the enquiry were of

grave and serious in nature warranting punishment of dismissal and after considering his attendance over the years

viz. 2006-2008 musters, and after finding that there was no improvement in his attendance, and as there was no

extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view, the Petitioner was dismissed from the services of the company

vide letter No.BPA/PER/129/1739, dated 17/19.5.2008 with immediate effect. It is submitted that the Petitioner

was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in at least 190 attendances as expected from an underground

workman during the years 2006 and 2008. Further, he remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave, sick

or sufficient cause and did not bother to communicate to the unit authorities about his inability to attend to duties.

The Petitioner did not, at least inform or communicate the reasons of his absence to the mine authorities at any

point of time, which clearly establish the fact that he was not interested in his job. The contention of the Petitioner

that due to his uncle‘s death in accident he could not attend the duties, but Petitioner could not produce any

certificate or medical records neither before enquiry officer nor before this Hon'ble Tribunal to substantiate his

absenteeism. Therefore, the contentions of the Petitioner are denied, and it is only an after thought to make out a

defense in his favour, and the Petitioner is to put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the Petitioner

raised the dispute in the year 2013, i.e. after a lapse of 6 years from the date of dismissal, which shows his

disinterest towards his duties. It is submitted that the Petitioner should have been more careful and conscious of

his responsibilities, towards his family members and towards his job. He failed to realize his mistake inspite of

giving opportunities and paid no heed to the advice of his higher authorities in regard to be regular to duties. For

the fault and mistakes of the Petitioner he cannot hold the Respondent Company responsible. It is the Petitioner

himself who has to be blamed for this situation, which is the result of his negligent behavior and callous attitude

towards his job. As such the allegations of the Petitioner are wholly untenable and devoid of any merits, hence

denied. The Respondent Company at present employees about 44,000 persons, which includes workmen,

executives and supervisors. The production results will depend upon the overall attendance and performance of

each and every individual. They are inter-linked and inseparable. In this regard, if any one remains absent,

without prior leave or without any justified cause, the work to be performed get affected. Such unauthorised

absence creates sudden void, which at time is very difficult to fill-up, and there will be no proper planning and

already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without prior notice. That is the reason why the Respondent's

Company is compelled to take severe action against the unauthorized absentee having put in less musters. The

Petitioner had put in 34 musters during the year 2006, 68 musters during the year 2007 and 15 musters up to

March,2008. As such the Respondent Company was constrained to dismiss the Petitioner for unauthorized

absenteeism with effect from 19.05.2008. In view of above, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition as devoid of

merits.

4.

On the basis of rival contentions and pleadings of both the parties, following issues emerge for

determination:-

I

Whether the departmental enquiry held against the workmen is the legal and valid?

II.

Whether the industrial dispute raised by development is barred by delay and latches?

5680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

III.

Whether the action of the Respondent management in terminating the services of the workmen Sri Jella

Balaiah vide order dated 19.5.2008 is legal and justified?

II.

To what relief if any the Petitioner is entitled?

Findings:-

5.

Issue No.I: - the departmental enquiry held against the Workman has been held legal and valid word

order dated 22.7.2023 as the Workman has conceded the validity and legality of the departmental enquiry.

Therefore, the issue decided accordingly.

6.

Issue No.II:- Undisputedly in the present matter Petitioner has been terminated from service vide order

dated 19th May 2008 and present industrial dispute has been raised by the Petitioner in the year 2015 after seven

years from the date of his termination, Petitioner has not furnished any explanation in his petition for such

inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute against termination order.

In this context, reference of few decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court are relevant as discussed hereunder:-

In K R Reddy Vs. Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, Hon‘ble Court held:-

“The Supreme Court extensively considered the scope of relevant provisions and precedent decisions and held

that there was inordinate, unexplained delay in referring the dispute.”

In the case of Assistant Engineer, CAD, Kota and Dhan Kumwar, CA No.6473, 2006 III LLJ, the Hon'ble

Apex Court have held:

“workman raising the dispute eight years after termination of service –therefore relief by Labour Court should

not have been granted to workman.”

In Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank and Neelam, 2005 I LLJ, the Apex Court held:

“Though no time limit prescribed for raising industrial dispute, but stale claim, could not be entertained –

approaching Labour Court after delay of more than 7 years. Held:- justified refusal of relief in this case.”

In the case of Sri Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department in Civil Appeal decision dated

7.9.15 Hon'ble Apex Court have held:-

―40) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we summarise the legal position as under:

“An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication and the workman

cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which are covered

by Section 2A of the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the appropriate

Government forms an opinion that 'any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended'. The words 'industrial

dispute exists' are of paramount importance unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute (or the

dispute is apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in near future), no reference is to be

made. Thus, existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference.

No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate

Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of reference is only an administrative

function. At the same time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the existence of the industrial

dispute or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension of industrial

dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material

on record. Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction dealing with cases where there is apprehended

industrial dispute, discussion that follows would confine to existence of an industrial dispute. Dispute or

difference arises when one party make a demand and other party rejects the same. It is held by this Court in

number of cases that before raising the industrial dispute making of demand is a necessary pre-condition. In

such a scenario, if the services of a workman are terminated and he does not make the demand and/or raise

the issue alleging wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within reasonable time and raises the

same after considerable lapse of period, whether it can be said that industrial dispute still exist. Since there

is no period of limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute even belatedly. However, if the

dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute still exists? Thus,

notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that there is

a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has lapsed

and there are laches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the industrial dispute seized to

exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these laches and delays and

demonstrate that the circumstances discloses that issue is still alive, delay would not come in his way

because of the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay

dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as “dead”, then it would be non-existent dispute which

cannot be referred. Take, for example, a case where the workman issues notice after his termination,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5681

questioning the termination and demanding reinstatement. He is able to show that there were discussions

from time to time and the parties were trying to sort out the matter amicably. Or he is able to show that there

were assurances by the Management to the effect that he would be taken back in service and because of these

reasons, he did not immediately raise the dispute by approaching the labour authorities seeking reference or

did not invoke the remedy under Section 2A of the Act. In such a scenario, it can be treated that the dispute

was live and existing as the workman never abandoned his right. However, in this very example, even if the

notice of demand was sent but it did not evoke any positive response or there was specific rejection by the

Management of his demand contained in the notice and thereafter he sleeps over the matter for number of

years, it can be treated that he accepted the factum of his termination and rejection thereof by the

Management and acquiesced into the said rejection. Take another example. A workman approaches the Civil

Court by filing a suit against his termination which was pending for number of years and was ultimately

dismissed on the ground that Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the contract of personal service

and does not grant any reinstatement. At that stage, when the suit is dismissed or he withdraws that suit and

then involves the machinery under the Act, it can lead to the conclusion that dispute is still alive as the

workman had not accepted the termination but was agitating the same; albeit in a wrong forum. In contrast,

in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination and the dispute is raised

belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or

acquiesced into the act of termination and, therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become

stale and was not an 'existing dispute'. In such circumstances, the appropriate Government can refuse to

make reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/Industrial Court can also hold that there is no

“industrial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted.

41) We may hasten to clarify that in those cases where the Court finds that dispute still existed, though raised

belatedly, it is always permissible for the Court to take the aspect of delay into consideration and mould the relief.

In such cases, it is still open for the Court to either grant reinstatement without back wages or lesser back wages

or grant compensation instead of reinstatement. We are of the opinion that the law on this issue has to be applied

in the aforesaid perspective in such matters.”

Moreover, in the case of Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs. Keshav Rao, 2005 JCR 96, Hon‘ble Supreme

Court have held that, the delay of a one year and five months in issuing a notice appears to us to be significant.

Here, in the present matter workman has not issued any notice or raised dispute against his termination in any

forum for a long period of about fourteen years and his claim against dismissal has become stale due to inordinate

delay and latches.

7.

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the

instant case industrial dispute has been raised by Workman in the year 2015 against his termination order dated

17/19.5.2008 after a lapse of 7 years and has not furnished any explanation for such inordinate delay. Thus, the

present dispute of Petitioner against termination order has become stale and not maintainable. Therefore, the

petition filed by the Workman is not maintainable due to inordinate delay and latches and such a dispute has

become stale and hence not maintainable.

This issue is decided against the Workman and in favour of the Respondent.

8.

Issue No.III:- Respondent submitted that Petitioner was appointed as badli filler on 16.9.2006 at

Goleti-1 inc., Bellampalli area and while he was working there so he has put in just 68 musters during the calendar

year 2007 and remained absent from duties unauthorisedly on all other days in the year which constituted

misconduct under the Company‘s Standing Order No.25.25 and 25.31. Further, Respondent submitted that the

Petitioner was issued with chargesheet dated 9.2.2008 was issued to him under Company‘s Standing Order

No.25.25 and 25.31 for his habitual absenteeism and absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient

cause during the year 2007. After receipt of the chargesheet the Petitioner had submitted his explanation to the

charge sheet, and Petitioner appeared before the enquiry and participated in the enquiry proceedings without any

pretext whatsoever in nature and he was given full and fair opportunity to defend his case. Further, Respondent

contended that basing on the evidence on record, Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges

levelled against the Petitioner were proved under Company‘s Standing Orders as mentioned in the chargesheet.

Further, it is submitted that Disciplinary Authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings and after

evaluating all the evidence on record conferred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Since the charges levelled

and proved in the enquiry were of grave and serious in nature warranting punishment of dismissal and after

considering his attendance over the years i.e., 2006-2008 musters, and after finding that there was no improvement

in his attendance, and as there was no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view. The Disciplinary

Authority dismissed the Petitioner from services of the company vide order dated 19.5.2008 with immediate

effect. Further, it is submitted that Petitioner was a chronic and habitual absentee and did not put in at least 190

attendances as expected from an underground Workman during the years 2006 and 2008. Further, Petitioner

remained absent without sanctioned leave, sick or sufficient cause and did not bother to communicate to the unit

authorities about his inability to attend to duties. Further, it is submitted that Petitioner has submitted that due his

uncle‘s death in accident he could not attend the duties but Petitioner could not produce any certificate or medical

5682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

records neither before Enquiry Officer to substantiate his plea of absenteeism. Further, Respondent submitted that

the pleas of Petitioner are denied and it is only an afterthought to make out a defence in his favour and the

Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

9.

In view of the submissions made by either parties perused the record of enquiry proceedings. Record of

enquiry proceeding goes to reveal that Petitioner was served with chargesheet dated 9.2.2008 and wherein it is

alleged against CSE workman that he has put in only 68 days musters for 190 musters in a calendar year 2007.

Further, said record goes to show that the management has examined two witnesses during the enquiry proceeding

in support of the charge and management witnesses has given the evidence that the Workman remained habitually

absent from duty unauthorisedly without sanction of leave and he has put in only 68 musters in the year 2007.

Although, the CSE Workman was accorded cross examination from these witnesses opportunity but he did not

avail of it. The statement of the CSE Workman was recorded during Enquiry and in his statement Workman has

admitted that he was absent from duty on the number of days mentioned in the charge sheet during the year 2007

but he was absent from duty due to ill-health and elder father (uncle) expired. Further, workman stated that he did

not report at company‘s hospital for treatment or for sick, unfit and he do not have any record to defend his case.

Further, in cross examination CSE Workman states that he did not apply for leave, sick or send information about

his absence from duty to the management and did not report sick at company‘s hospital for treatment for sick,

unfit. Further, Workman admitted that he has no record and he remained absent from duty on the dates as

mentioned in the charge sheet on his own.

10.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid statement of the CSE Workman and evidence recorded during the enquiry

proceeding, the charge against the CSE Workman was found established under Standing Order No.25.25 for

habitual absenteeism from the duty. Further, record reveals that show cause notice was served upon the CSE

Workman for submitting his representation against the finding contained in the enquiry report and that got received

by the Workman as per acknowledgement. Thereafter Disciplinary Authority after considering all the evidence

and extenuating factors, passed the dismissal order dated 19.5.2008, finding the charge against workman grave and

serious. Therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety or infirmity in the dismissal order of the Petitioner, passed

by Respondent management.

11.

Although Workman has taken plea that he remained absent during the year 2007 due to the reason that he

was suffering from ill-health and also his uncle passed away and he could not be regular on duty. But Petitioner

failed to produce any documents to substantiate his plea of illness. Therefore, for the want of any documentary

evidence i.e., prescriptions of medical practitioner about his treatment of illness or medical certificate of unfit from

competent medical practitioner. This plea of workman is not tenable. Further, workman failed to explain that

why he could not report to the Company‘s hospital about his sickness or report about his absenteeism to the

Respondent. Therefore, for the want of above stated documentary evidence, the plea of illness taken by the

Workman is nothing but ruse and feeble ground and same is not tenable.

In this context, Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sardar Singh 2004 SC 574 have

held, that an employee absents himself from the duty even without sanctioned leave for a very long period, prima

facie shows lack of interest in the work and the authority can on the basis of record come to the conclusion about

employee being habitual negligent in duties and exhibited the lack of interest in the employers work, the burden is

on employee who claimed that there is no negligence and lack of interest to establish it by placing the relevant

material. But in the present case Petitioner utterly failed to produce any material in evidence to substantiate his

plea of illness hence, he has rightly been held guilty of committing misconduct under Company‘s Standing Order

No.25.25 for habitual absenteeism from duty.

Further, Hon‘ble Supreme Court in its number of decisions have held that workman remaining absent from duty

for a long time is a grave misconduct , few decisions of Hon‘ble Courts are discussed hereunder:-

In State of U.P. V. Ashok Kumar Singh 1996 (1) SCC 302, wherein the Apex Court had held:-

“Having notices the fact that the first Respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several

occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount

to such a grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to

interfere with the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge'

especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with

the punishment is made out.”

In the case of North Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corpn. v. Ashappa decided on 12 May, 2006 wherein, the Apex

Court had held:-

“Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The Appellant runs a

fleet of buses. It is a statutory organization. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the

service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain

absent for a long time. The Respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices,

he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5683

leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this

view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the Respondent herein has to be treated

lightly.

In Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574], the Apex Court held-:

"11. Conclusions regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of

absence, more particularly, when same is unauthorised. Burden is on the employee who claims that there was no

negligence and/or lack of interest to establish it by placing relevant materials. Clause (ii) of para 4 of the Standing

Orders shows the seriousness attached to habitual absence. In clause (i) thereof, there is requirement of prior

permission. Only exception made is in case of sudden illness. There also conditions are stipulated, non-observance

of which renders the absence unauthorised."

State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 276],

it was opined that, “the Industrial Courts or the High Courts would not normally interfere with the quantum

of punishment imposed upon by the Respondent stating: "It is now well-settled that principles of law that the

High Court or the Tribunal in exercise of its power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the

quantum of punishment. Doctrine of proportionality can be invoked only under certain situations. It is now

well-settled that the High Court shall be very slow in interfering with the quantum of punishment unless it is

found to be shocking to one's conscience."

The Hon‘ble Apex Court in the case of Management Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary Civil

Appeal 5762-5763 of 2009 decided on 24.08.2009 laid down the test of proportionality of punishment and

held:-

“One of the test to be applied while dealing with the question of punishment would be: would any

reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable

employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other

relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.”

In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay, the 2022 LLR

page 126, wherein the Hon‘ble Apex Court held:-

―once the enquiry finding is held to be fair and proper, industrial Tribunal or Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to

interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of

conduct.”

Thus, in view of the fore gone discussion, I am of the considered view that the termination order of the Workman

from service passed by the Respondent management is legal and justified and said dismissal order of Petitioner is

liable to be confirmed.

This issue is decided against the workman and in favour of the Respondent.

12.

Issue No.IV:- In view of the finding given in Issues No. I, II, III & IV, the Petitioner is not entitled to

get any relief and present petition is found to be devoid of merit, hence, liable to be dismissed.

Therefore, Issue No.III is decided accordingly.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above, the

action of the General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Bellampalli Area, Goleti Township

(P.O.), Adilabad Distt., in terminating the services of Sri Jellala Balaiah, Ex-Badli Filler, Goleti-1 Inc, SCCo. Ltd.,

Bellampalli Area with effect from 19.5.2008 is held legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief

as prayed for. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on

this the 26th day of June, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

5684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 28 जुलाइ, 2025

का.अ. 1472.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa औद्योजगक न्यायाजधकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय-सह- ऄजतररक्त। जजला. एवं सत्र न्यायालय, गोदावरीखानी ds

iapkV (ृहचान

. 23/2024) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल 22013/01/2025- vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-II)]

मजणकंदन.एन, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2025

S.O. 1472.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 23 / 2024) of the INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 28/07/2025.

[No. L-22013/01/2015– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST.

& SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.

MONDAY, ON THIS THE 23th DAY OF JUNE, 2025.

I.D.No.23 of 2024

Between:-

Munimandla Sridhar, S/o. Venkati, Age:46 Yrs, Occ: Ex-Badil Filler, E.C.No.2383080, H.No.7-3-533/440,

Ganganagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

….Petitioner/Workman

A N D

1.

The Director (PA & W), Corporate Office,

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem Town, Badradhri Kothagudem District.

2.

The General Manager, RK-1A,

Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Mandamarri Area, Mancherial District.

…. Respondents/Management

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Gulla Ramesh, Advocate for the

Petitioner/Workman and of Sri T. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the Respondents/Management and having been

heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

AWARD:-

This petition is filed U/Sec.2-A (2) of I.D. Act praying to set aside the dismissal order dt.25.01.2021

passed by the Respondent No.2 and direct the Respondents‘ Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with

continuity of service, together with all attendant benefits and full back wages.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5685

2(a). The petitioner was appointed as Badili-Filler by Respondents‘/ Company on 11.09.2014 under dependent

employment scheme and was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the company authorities. He

served the respondents company put-up musters i.e., 2014-(70), 2015-(83), 2016-(70), 2017-(70), 2018-(80), 2019-

(60), 2020-(93). In the year 2020, he fell sick and bed-ridden in his native place due to Astama, Skin allergy, ENT

and joints problems. He was not in a possession to move from the bed and he was constrained to take treatment at

various hospitals. He lodged an application to the respondents‘ company to refer him to the company attached

hospitals for better treatment. The company referred the petitioner for treatment from the corporate hospitals but he

was not recovered. But, without considering his illness, the period was treated as absent, conducted exparte

enquiry in the absence of petitioner and dismissed him from 25.01.2021. He incurred huge expenditure for

aliments and was compiled to make debts with friends and relatives. He was unable to maintain his family during

his illness which given rise to family disputes and suffered physical trauma and mental agony.

2(b). The petitioner reported back to his duty after his sickness and he was informed that he was dismissed from

service with effect from 25.01.2021. The capital punishment of dismissal was inflected on the petitioner during his

treatment and increment was also stopped for 01.03.2021, 01.03.2022 years which shocked the petitioner. It was a

direct blow on his stomach and the management with one stroke in the shape of dismissal, shattered his life at into

pieces which is illegal. The respondents have failed to understand the true facts of the case and conducted exparte

enquiry behind the back of the petitioner, which is against the rules of the company. The action of

Respondents‘/Company is highly arbitrary and the punishments imposed i.e., (two increments stopped and

dismissed from service) are illegal and cannot be sustained under law.

2(c). The petitioner, ever since his unjust dismissal from service, could not secure any other alternative

employment and remained unemployed. He incurred huge debts for his medical treatment and his children. He is

facing lot of hardship and mercy in the absence of employment. This Court has got every jurisdiction to try the

case U/Sec.2 (A) (2) as per the settled law and wide powers are vested U/Sec.11-A of I.D Act, to quash the

dismissal order and to grant every relief to the poor petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to the set aside the dismissal

Order dt.25.01.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents' company to reinstate the petitioner

into service with continuity of service, all other attendant benefits and full back wages.

3. On the other side, the Respondents‘/Company has submitted counter by admitting the employment of

Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents‘-Company and inter-alia contended that since the Coal Mining industry

is central subject, Appropriate Government for this Respondents/Management is Central Government. The Central

Government established an Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29.12.2000 for adjudication

of industrial disputes and the petitioner ought to have approached the said Tribunal. But, the Petitioner

conveniently avoided filing his petition before the Tribunal established by the Central Government for the reasons

best known to him. Hence, the petition is not maintainable under law and the same may be dismissed on this

ground alone. The Respondents Company without prejudice to its rights in respect of the above preliminary

objection submits that according to Sec.52(2) of the Mines Act 1952, an underground employee is required to put

in minimum musters of (190) and surface employee has to put in (240) musters. The petitioner is a chronic

absentee who did not change his attitude in-spite of several opportunities as such the Respondent Company was

constrained to dismiss him by following due process of law; as such the I.D is not maintainable.

3(a). The petitioner was initially appointed into the services of the Respondents/Company as Badli Filler under

dependant employment scheme vide office order dt.20.09.2000. The Petitioner being an underground employee is

expected to put in minimum of (190) Musters in a calendar year. But he failed to put-in (190) musters from the date

of his appointment i.e., 2014 till dismissal. The following attendance particulars indicate the fact that the petitioner

was not regular to his duties and was a chronic absentee who was disinterested to work:-

Sl.No.

Year

No. of Musters

1.

2002

101

2.

2003

99

3.

2004

101

4.

2005

53

5.

2006

91

3(b). The petitioner was charge sheeted vide charge-sheet dt.08.02.2006 for ―Habitual Late attendance or habitual

absence from duty without sufficient cause‖. He fully participated in the inquiry but as he did not change his

attitude, the respondents/ company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner from service with effect from

01.02.2007 vide office order dt.19.01.2007. He was re-appointed for a period of one year on trial basis vide office

5686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

order dt.25.08.2014 and after trial period he was re-appointed as afresh Badli Filler(UG) at Mandamarri Area on

15.09.2014. But he failed to put-in 190 musters from the date of his re-appointment i.e., 2014 to till dismissal. The

following attendance particulars indicate the fact that the petitioner was not regular to his duties and was a chronic

absentee who was disinterested to work:

Sl.

No.

Year

No. of Musters

as per the

Petition

No. of Musters as

per SCCL records

Charge Sheet issued

Date

Penalty imposed

1.

2014

80

-

-

2.

2015

83

101

-

3.

2016

70

100

17.02.2017

Suspends for 10 days

4.

2017

70

26

05.03.2018

Penalty for stoppage of

(One) increment without

cumulative effect

5.

2018

80

45

13.03.2019

Penalty for stoppage for

(One) increment without

cumulative effect

6.

2019

6

53

19.03.2020

--

7.

2020

93

44

Constrained to dismiss the

petitioner

3(c). The Petitioner if suffered from ill-health, it is his primary responsibility to report sick in the Colliery Hospital

and inform his Superior Officers about his incapability to attend duties. The Respondents/Company runs chain of

Hospitals and renders free medical services to its employees, further it even refers severe and chronic medical

issues to the Corporate Medical Hospitals at Hyderabad. The Petitioner is a chronic absentee who never reported

sick at Respondents‘ Company hospitals and failed to improve his attendance even after (06) years of appointment

and the Respondents/Company was constrained to dismiss him for his misconduct in the year 2020 after following

the principles of natural justice and due process of Law.

3(d). The petitioner‘s negligent attitude in not improving his attendance in spite of several charge sheets and

penalty is the cause for his dismissal. The Respondent Company runs chain of Hospitals and renders free medical

service to its employees and it even refer severe medical issues to Corporate Medical Hospitals at Hyderabad. But,

he failed to avail the privilege & welfare schemes provided by the Respondent Company and he is responsible for

incurring huge expenses. In the year of appointment i.e., 2014 he has put in (101) musters which is less than

minimum musters of (190) for underground employee and (240) musters of surface employee. He continued the

same till 2017 as such the Respondent Company was constrained to take action on him by issuing charge sheet for

un-authorized absenteeism under Company Standing Order vide Charge sheet dt.17.02.2017. However a lenient

view was taken and he was suspended for (10) days vide letter dt.03.02.2018. But the petitioner failed to change his

attitude and continued to be absent from duty. Accordingly, in the year 2018 he was once again Charge sheeted for

the absenteeism in the year 2017. However giving another opportunity to improve himself, a lenient view was

taken by the Management/Respondents and he was imposed penalty for stoppage of (ONE) increment without

cumulative effect vide letter. Further he failed to change his attitude even after imposition of penalty and still

remained absence, as such he was once again charge sheeted for the absenteeism in the year 2018. However giving

another opportunity to improve himself a lenient view has been taken and he was imposed penalty for stoppage of

(ONE) increment without cumulative effect.

3(e). Further, the production results will depend upon the overall attendance and performance of each every

individual. If anyone remains absent without prior sanction of leave or without any justified cause, the work to be

performed gets effected. Such unauthorized absence creates sudden void, which at times is very difficult to fill-up

with substitute, and there will be no proper planning and already planned schedules get suddenly disturbed without

prior notice. For that reason un-authorized absence is viewed seriously, because it will not only affect the

production and also create burden on the remaining workers. The petitioner during the period from January, 2019

to December, 2019 has put in only 53 musters. As the above act amounted to misconduct under Standing Orders

No.25.25 and 25.31, he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dt.19.03.2020, directing him to submit his

explanation within (04) days. He received the charge sheet, but did not submit explanation within the stipulated

time as such the Enquiry notice was sent to his residential address through Registered Post with Ack., due by

informing him to attend enquiry on 21.07.2020, he has received that notice but failed to attend the enquiry; as such

the enquiry was set exparte. The enquiry officer after going through the evidence on record and the evidence of

Management witness has submitted unbiased finding holding the charges proved vide enquiry proceedings and

Report dt.21.07.2020. As the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved, the copy of enquiry report was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5687

sent to his residential address vide letter dt.12.10.2020 to submit his written representation within (07) days of the

receipt of the report. The petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of the same and has not submitted any

explanation against findings of Enquiry report. The Respondent Company was constrained to dismiss the petitioner

from service as he was a chronic absentee vide office order dt.25.01.2021. On his appeal dt.18.02.2021, the

Competent Authority after review of the same has confirmed the punishment of dismissal vide Proc.dt.25.01.2021.

Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition and not to grant any relief to the petitioner/workman.

4. In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he was got examined as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W-1 and

Ex.W-3 and on the other side, for the Respondents‘-Company Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-11 were marked, on confrontation

of Petitioner/W.W-1.

5. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner/Workman as well as learned standing counsel for the

Respondents‘/Company.

6.

Now the points for consideration are:-

1.

Whether this Industrial Dispute is maintainable before this Tribunal or not?

2.

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent is held valid or not?

3.

Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved basing on evidence or not? If so, whether

punishment is disproportionate or not?

4.

Whether the dismissal order dt.25.01.2021 is liable to be set aside, if so, the petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and full back wages?

If not to what relief is the worker entitled to?”

7. From the pleadings of Petitioner/Workman and Respondents‘/ Company, these are the admitted facts that the

Petitioner/ Workman was working as Badli Filler in Respondents‘/ Company and he was dismissed from service

for the charges of the unauthorized and habitual absenteeism to duties. Now coming to the documentary evidence

of both sides, on behalf of the respondents‘/company, Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-11 were marked, wherein, Ex.M-1 is the

attested copy of dismissal order dt.29.01.2007 and Ex.M-2 is attested copy of Re-Appointment order dt.

25.08.2014. Ex.M-3 is the attested copy of Charge Sheet for the year 2016, Ex.M-4 is the attested copy of Charge

Sheet for the year 2018 and Ex.M-5 is the attested copy of Charge Sheet for the year 2019. Ex.M-6 is the attested

copy of Enquiry Notice dt.16.07.2020 and Ex.M-7 is the attested copy of Enquiry Proceedings dt.21.07.2020.

Ex.M-8 is attested copy of Ack., of Charge Sheet dt.12.10.2020. Ex.M-9 is attested copy of Appeal Rejection Order

dt.27.08.2021 and Ex.M-10 is the attested copy of Appeal dt.18.02.2021. Ex.M-11 is the attested copy of dismissal

order dt.25.01.2021. On the other side, the petitioner got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex. W-3 on his behalf, wherein, Ex.W-

1 is dismissal order dt.25.01.2021. Ex.W-2 is Increment stopped punishment order dt.30.11.2020 and Ex.W-3 is

seven days notice on exparte enquiry report dt.07.10.2020. The above documents of both sides are not in much

dispute by either side.

8. Here, on the point of jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has put forth and set forth that as per the

Division Bench Judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U.

Chinnappa Vs. Cotton Corporation of India, this Tribunal has jurisdiction over Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner though the appropriate Government is Central

Government. The petitioner need not raise the Industrial Dispute compulsorily before the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad alone, as contended by the respondents‘ company. Hence, this I.D petition filed by

the petitioner is well maintainable before this Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute on merits.

8(a). The learned counsel for the Petitioner further put forth and set forth that the Petitioner was re-appointed as

Badli Worker during the year 2014. He fell sick and bed-ridden in his native place due to Astama, Skin allergy,

ENT and joints problems. He was not in a possession to move from the bed and he was constrained to take

treatment at various hospitals. He lodged an application to the respondents‘ company to refer him to company

attached hospitals for better treatment. The company referred the petitioner for treatment from the corporate

hospitals but he was not recovered. But, without considering his illness, the period was treated as absent,

conducted exparte enquiry in the absence of petitioner and dismissed him from 25.01.2021. He incurred huge

expenditure for aliments and was compiled to make debts with friends and relatives. Further, the capital

punishment of dismissal from service is extremely harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the

charges. It was a direct blow on his stomach and the management with one stroke of dismissal, shattered his life at

into pieces. Therefore, he prays to set aside the dismissal order and direct the respondent‘s company to reinstate

the petitioner into service with continuity of service, together with all attendant benefits and full back wages.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents‘/company strenuously put forth and set forth that the

petitioner was initially appointed as badli-filler on 12.07.2007. He was a chronic absentee and he did not put-in the

required musters in any calendar year through-out his service. He did not change his attitude and failed to attend

5688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

duties regularly. In the due course as the petitioner failed to put-in required musters, he was again issued charge

sheet for habitual absenteeism without any sufficient cause and without any sanctioned leave which is misconduct

under clause 25.25 & 25.31 of the Respondent Company Standing orders. The relevant clause of standing orders

reads as under:

“Clause 25.25 – Habitual late attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause.”

”Clause 25. 31 – Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned

leave.”

9(a). The learned counsel for the respondents‘/company further put forth and set forth that the petitioner received

the charge sheet but did not submit any explanation. Though he received the enquiry notice, he did not choose to

appear the enquiry officer and not availed the opportunity to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer conducted

enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings report by

holding the petitioner guilty of charges and misconduct under standing orders. The petitioner did not submit any

representation on the enquiry findings report also. The Respondent Company having found no extenuating

circumstances to take a lenient view, was constrained to impose the punishment of dismissal from service vide

Proc. dt.25.01.2021 which is legal and valid. Further, his appeal dt.18.02.2021 was rightly dismissed by the

competent authority by dismissal order, vide Proc. dt.27.08.2021. There is no victimization and punishment of

dismissal is not harsh and the Respondent Company was very much correct in imposing the punishment of

dismissal because of the misconduct and the reckless attitude of the Petitioner. Further, the habitual absenteeism

creates lot of indiscipline among the workers, disturb the working system and also causing financial burden due

to extending the benefits though they are not contributing for the production and productivity. Therefore, he prayed

to dismiss the petition and not to grant any relief to the petitioner/workman.

POINT No.1:

10. Here, on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it is settled Law that as per the Division Bench

Judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa Vs. Cotton

Corporation of India, this Tribunal has got every jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the

petitioner/workman who was an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Even though, the Central Govt.

is appropriate Govt., for the respondents‘-Company, the petitioner need not compulsorily raise the Industrial

Dispute before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, as contended by the respondents‘ company; and

he can file this I.D. case before this Tribunal as well. Hence, the contentions of the respondents‘-company on the

point of jurisdiction of this Tribunal are not sustainable under Law. Accordingly, it is answered in favour of the

petitioner and against the respondents‘ Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

POINT No.2:

11. In this matter, initially the petitioner/workman has denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report. But

on 16.06.2025 the learned counsel for petitioner filed Memo U/Sec.11-A of I.D.Act by accepting the procedure of

domestic enquiry to be fair and valid. Hence, there is no dispute that the Enquiry Officer has followed the

principles of natural justice. Now the next question is whether the misconduct is proved in the facts of the case and

the findings are not perverse. So, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion with

regard to finding guilty or not based on evidence. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.

POINT No.3 & 4:

12.

In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as the Respondents/corporation and rival

arguments of both sides, now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially

appointed as Badli Filler under dependant employment scheme vide office order dt.20.09.2000 and was dismissed

from service vide office order dt.19.01.2007 alleging absenteeism to duties under Ex.M-1, prior to this case. He

was re-appointed as afresh Badli Filler(UG) at Mandamarri Area vide office Order dt.25.08.2014 under Ex.M-2,

and was again dismissed from service vide Office Order dt.25.01.2021 under Ex.M-11, alleging absenteeism to

duties.

13. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner absented to duties for (222) days and had put-in

(100) actual musters during the year 2016, for which charge sheet 17.02.2017 was issued to the petitioner, which is

marked as Ex.M-3. The petitioner also absented to duties for (292) days and had put-in only (45) actual musters

during the year 2018, for which charge sheet 13.03.2019 was issued to the petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-5.

Further, the petitioner again absented to duties for (261) days and had put-in only (53) actual musters during the

year 2019, for which charge sheet 19.03.2020 was issued to the petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-6. Domestic

enquiry was conducted regarding the absenteeism of the petitioner during the year 2019 for which Ex.M-5 charge

sheet dt.19.03.2020 was issued to him. It appears that enquiry notice dt.16.07.2020 under Ex.M-6 was issued to the

petitioner, but he failed attend the enquiry. From the proceedings of enquiry under Ex.M-7, it appears that the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5689

enquiry notice was sent to the petitioner by RPAD on 16.07.2020 advising him to attend the enquiry on

21.07.2020. He received the same, but did not choose to attend the enquiry. He was called loudly (03) times in

front of the office of SOM and in the premises, but there was no response. Hence, there was no alternative except

to conduct the enquiry exparte.

13(a). Further, the enquiry officer examined Sri B.Balakishan Rao, Acting OS & Presenting Officer; Sri P.Samba

Reddy, Pay Sheet clerk and P.Chinnamma, General Mazdoor, who deposed in support of the charges framed

against the petitioner. Further from the Enquiry Report under Ex.M-7, it is clearly evident that the charges were

amply proved against the petitioner. The petitioner/workman acknowledged the same on 14.10.2020 vide Ack.,

under Ex.M-8. The petitioner did not submit any representation on the enquiry report and the respondents/company

dismissed him from service vide Proc. dt.25.01.2021 which is marked as Ex.M-11. He submitted appeal

dt.18.02.2021 under Ex.M-10 stating that his absenteeism was due to ill-health only but not intentional and

requested to reinstate him into service. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide Proc. dt.27.08.2021 by the

competent authority. Thus, it is evident from the enquiry report under Ex.M-3 as well as the material on record,

that the petitioner had not put in minimum required musters of (190) and he put-in only (53) musters, during the

year 2019. For which, petitioner submitted in his appeal that due to ill-health and family problems, he was unable

to perform duty regularly during the charge sheet period. However, it is clear that the petitioner has not attended to

duties regularly and the charges were proved against him. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents/company

has no axe to grind against the petitioner. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the charges leveled

against the petitioner/workman are proved and misconduct of the petitioner/workman is established basing on the

evidence and findings of enquiry officer are not perverse. Moreover, this is not the case of loaded dice situation

against the petitioner/workman by the respondents/corporation.

14. Here, the contention of the Petitioner/Workman is that he was re-appointed in the year 2014 and he served the

company for (5) years and he hails from a very poor family, he has got no other livelihood and facing untold

financial problems and prayed to consider the case U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act. The ill-health suffered by the petitioner

and facts and circumstances of the present case amount to mitigating circumstances.

15. Here, this Tribunal relied on a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil

Appeal No.2157/1999, dt.08.04.1999 between Ajaib Singh vs. Sirhind Co-op. Marketing-cum-Processing Service

Society Ltd., & another, wherein their lordships held that:-

“The object of Industrial Disputes Act was to give succor to weaker sections of the society. The emergence of

State implies an end to exploitation of workman and as a corollary to that collective bargaining came into it ow

intended to protect workmen against victimization and exploitation by the employer and to ensure termination of

peaceful manner.

“The object of the Act, therefore, is to give succor to weaker sections of the society which is a pre-requisit

ensure industrial peace and pre-empt industrial tension, the Act further aims at enhancing the industrial production

to be life-blood of a developing society. The Act provides a machinery for investigation and settlement of industr

legal technicalities with a view to avoid delays, by specially authorized Courts which are not supposed to deny the

procedural wrangles”.

15(a). Further, in a decision of the Hon‘ble High Court reported in 2012 (1) ALD 220 (DB), wherein their

lordships observed that:-

“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a social welfare legislation, which required to be interpreted

keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble and Directive principles of State Policy in Part-IV of the

Constitution. The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is conferred with very wide discretion U/Sec.11-A of the

Act for granting appropriate relief”.

16. Here, their Lordships of the Hon‘ble Gujarat High Court in a case rendered on 04.05.1994, Between:

Management of Glaxo India Ltd., Vs. State of Assam and 3 others categorically observed that ―a Labour Court is

required to settle a dispute according to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience and law

without attaching undue importance to legal technicalities‖.

17. Here, it is to be noted that the concept of Industrial Dispute is quite broad and with the passage of time its

horizon is being expanded. Further, the disputes are required to be resolved for the purpose of establishing peaceful

and cordial atmosphere in an industry. Peace and harmony are the quintessential aspects which are to be kept in

view while dealing with the “lis” or “controversy” relating to any industry. Apart from the above, whether the

impugned punishment is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court, has to be decided on the facts

of each case, having due regard to the gravity of misconduct & nature of duties discharged by the delinquent

employee.

18. Further, the Hon‘ble Madras High Court observed in a case rendered in Management of Hyudai Motor India

Ltd Vs. T.Sudhakar ... on 31st January, 2022:

5690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“When scales of justice stands balanced in a given case, the tilt to be exercised should be in favour of

the poor workmen rather than the mighty Managements.”

19. Therefore, in view of the above mitigating circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the

extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the respondents/company against the

petitioner/workman is harsh, disproportionate and shocks to conscience of this Tribunal, hence, deserves to be

modified since the disciplinary authority cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily and work like a Roman Knight and

it cannot be allowed a fight between David and Goliath as in the present case on hand. Moreover, the facts of this

case attracts the proverbial saying “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. Moreover, facts of this

case attracts the proverbial saying “Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future” and Biblical proverbs

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute‖ and “Speak up and

judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Further, “Heavens would not have fallen if one more

opportunity is given for the petitioner”.

20. This Tribunal has perused, analyzed and meditated upon the case at hand, the case laws and principles of law

referred above. In view of the above facts and circumstances and keeping in view of the principle “temper justice

with mercy” and to meet the ends of justice, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment of removal from

service imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate and shocks the conscience of this Tribunal and hence, it

deserves to be modified appropriately. Taking a holistic view of the matter, this Tribunal is of considered view that

the extreme punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner deserves to be modified. However,

since the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved, the relief is to be molded by this Tribunal appropriately

and this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service as ―Afresh

Badli Filler‖ only. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, any continuity of service and

any attendant benefits, since petitioner might have gainfully employed during pendency of this Industrial Dispute.

Hence, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Respondents Company is hereby modified

appropriately. Accordingly, the Point No.2 & 3 are answered.

21. IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed. The dismissal order dt.25.01.2021 under Ex.M-11 passed by

the Respondent No.2 is hereby modified. The respondents‘/company is directed to reinstate the petitioner into

service as ―Afresh Badli Filler‖ only, but without any continuity of service, without any attendant benefits and

without any back wages. The petitioner is entitled to the salary only from the date of publication this Award. Copy

of the Award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23th day of June,

2025.

Dr. T. SRINIVAS RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR WORKMAN:-

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

WW-1: M.Sridhar, Petitioner.

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR WORKMAN:-

Ex.W-1

Dt.

25.01.2021

Dismissal Order.

Ex.W-2

Dt.

30.11.2020

Increment stopped punishment order.

Ex.W-3

Dt.

07.10.2020

Seven days notice on exparte enquiry report.

FOR MANAGEMENT:-

Ex.M-1

Dt.

29.01.2007

Attested copy of Dismissal Order.

Ex.M-2

Dt.

25.08.2014

Attested copy of Re-Appointment Order.

Ex.M-3

Dt.

17.02.2017

Attested copy of Charge Sheet for the year 2016.

Ex.M-4

Dt.

13.03.2019

Attested copy of Charge Sheet for the year 2018.

Ex.M-5

Dt.

19.03.2020

Attested copy of Charge Sheet for the year 2019.

Ex.M-6

Dt.

16.07.2020

Attested copy of Enquiry Notice

Ex.M-7

Dt.

21.07.2020

Attested copy of Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.M-8

Dt.

12.10.2020

Attested copy of Ack. of Charge Sheet.

Ex.M-9

Dt.

27.08.2021

Attested copy of Appeal Rejection Order.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5691

Ex.M-10

Dt.

18.02.2021

Attested copy of Appeal.

Ex.M-11

Dt.

25.01.2021

Attested copy of Dismissal Order.

नइ ददल्ली, 5 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1473.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ़- II ds iapkV (96/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल 12025/01/2025- vkbZ-vkj(ch-I)-101]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 5th August, 2025

S.O. 1473.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 96/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Reserve Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR (B-I)-101]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).

ID No.96/2024

Registered on:-22.01.2025

Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Ram, R/o Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir-180003.

-------- Workman

Versus

1. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Jammu, RBI Office, Rail Head Complex, UT of Jammu &

Kashmir-180012.

2. Sh. Vaneet Aggarwal C/o M/s Bee Kay Protection System, Contractor, Kothi No.1, Shakti Nagar, Jammu, UT

of Jammu & Kashmir-180001.

----Respondents

Present:-

None for Workman.

None for respondent no.1 and 2.

Award : 07.07.2025

Central Government vide Notification No.08(42)/2024/RLC/Jmu dated 03.01.2025, under sub-section

(5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called

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

―Whether the termination of workman w.e.f. 15.07.2024 by The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of

India, Jammu, RBI Office, Rail Head Complex, UT of Jammu & Kashmir-180012 and M/s Bee Kay

Protection System, Contractor, Kothi No.1, Shakti Nagar, Jammu, UT of Jammu & Kashmir-180001

is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workman Shri Surinder Kumar S/o Sh.

Shiv Ram is entitled to and from which date?‖

1.

The matter is fixed for filing claim statement by the workman. However, an application for withdrawal of

industrial dispute received on behalf of workman through registered post stating therein that both the parties, after

mutual discussions, have arrived at a settlement in full and final resolution of all issues involved in the dispute.

The terms of settlement are acceptable to both the parties. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between

the parties, the applicant seeks to withdraw the industrial dispute pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

2.

In view of the application for withdrawal of industrial dispute, , this Tribunal is left with no choice,

except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the present reference.

5692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1474.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती मररयम्मा एच. के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-10/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025- vkbZ-vkj(एम)-101]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1474.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 10/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Smt. Mariyamma H. which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025- IR (M)-101]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 10/2018

I Party

II Party

Smt. Mariyamma H,

D/o Hariyamma, A K Colony,

3rd Cross, Near Bhajana Mandir,

Yantrapura Post,

Tq : Harihara – 577 601.

Dt : Davangere

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 02.08.2010 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5693

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff;

that she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours

per day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she

was deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval

application seeking permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under

Section 25N of the Act; that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run

her family and that she does not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh

entrants in her place and the nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal

and malafide; that she raised an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present

petition requesting this Tribunal to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the

provisions of ID Act; reinstate her into service with full backwages and other benefits, regularization with

continuity of service and ancillary benefits from the date of her appointment 02.08.2010 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job

on daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the back wages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 02.08.2010 at its Harihara Branch and continued

to work for seven years till 16.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party and she

was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with an

assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the five vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in

5694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for seven years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify herself to be entitled for permanency or

rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II

Party that she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-2, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish her case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 16.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the

Ex W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a

daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter

by any authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on piece meal basis depending

upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her payment of wages was as per the Government

of Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that

since the I Party was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage

towards Provident Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances

explained by MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

wager without there being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I

Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one

post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which she claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5695

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it

is bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

shortlisted candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor

her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the

respective years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she

performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of

service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a

case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails

and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

5696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1475.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री एच एस कोतरेषा के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-11/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-102]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1475.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 11/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri H S Kotresha which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-102]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 11/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri H S Kotresha,

S/o S Shivarudrappa,

5th Main Road, 2nd Cross,

High School Ex,

HARIHARA – 577 601.

Dist : Davanagere

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5697

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 09.01.2012 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the evening hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval

application seeking permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under

Section 25N of the Act; that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his

family and that he does not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh

entrants in his place and the nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal

and malafide; that he raised an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present

petition requesting this Tribunal to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the

provisions of ID Act; reinstate him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with

continuity of service and ancillary benefits from the date of his appointment 09.01.2012 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the back wages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 09.01.2012 at its Harihara Branch and continued

to work for Six years till 16.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party and he was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants.

The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the

LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for the days of his

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he

testified that he was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in

the II Party. Ex W-1 series are four vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from

the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those

vouchers would never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear

5698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for

permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been

given by the II Party that he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-2, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 16.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 27.12.2017 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the

Ex W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a

daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by

any authority. His engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending

upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of

Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since

the I Party was paid wages counting the number of days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards

Provident Fund and payment of bonus to him also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by

MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without

there being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. He did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. He

testified that he is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post

of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point of

controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been an

engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which he claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5699

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is

bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

shortlisted candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor

her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement

was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I

Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually

his Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

5700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1476.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1847 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती गायत्री जी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-12/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-103]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1476.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 12/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Smt. Gayathri G which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-103]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 12/2018

I Party

II Party

Smt. Gayathri G,

W/o Shankar R L,

C/o Sree Sha Graphics, I Main, Near I Cross

Circle, J C Extn.,

HARIHARA – 577 601.

Dist : Davangere.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5701

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 21.12.2009 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff;

that she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours

per day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she

was deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval

application seeking permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under

Section 25N of the Act; that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run

her family and that she does not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh

entrants in her place and the nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal

and malafide; that she raised an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present

petition requesting this Tribunal to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the

provisions of ID Act; reinstate her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with

continuity of service and ancillary benefits from the date of her appointment 21.12.2009 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job

on daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the back wages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 21.12.2009 at its Harihara Branch and continued

to work for eight years till 16.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party and she

was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with an

assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

5702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the four vouchers and corresponding one receipt dated 01.01.2010 produced by

the I Party to prove the payments received by her from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received

by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it

substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process.

Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for

eight years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for

permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been

given by the II Party that she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-2, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish her case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 16.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the

Ex W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a

daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter

by any authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis

depending upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the

Government of Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely

testified that since the I Party was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made

from her wage towards Provident Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The

circumstances explained by MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged

only as a daily wager without there being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance

being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I

Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one

post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which she claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5703

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it

is bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

shortlisted candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor

her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the

respective years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she

performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of

5704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a

case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails

and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1477.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री एस मोहन के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-13/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-104]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1477.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri S Mohan which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-104]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 13/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri S Mohan,

S/o Subramani V,

No. 146, Labour Colony,

7th Cross,

DAVANAGERE – 577 002.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5705

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 26.12.2010 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval

application seeking permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under

Section 25N of the Act; that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his

family and that he does not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh

entrants in his place and the nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal

and malafide; that he raised an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present

petition requesting this Tribunal to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the

provisions of ID Act; reinstate him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with

continuity of service and ancillary benefits from the date of his appointment 26.12.2010 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-10 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 26.12.2010 at its Davanagere I Branch and

continued to work for Seven years till 16.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party

and he was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for

the days of his engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification

5706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

calling for applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he

testified that he was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in

the II Party. Ex W-1 series are two vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from

the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those

vouchers would never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear

vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for

permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been

given by the II Party that he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-2, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 27.12.2017 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the

Ex W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a

daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by

any authority. His engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending

upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of

Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since

the I Party was paid wages counting the number of days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards

Provident Fund and payment of bonus to him also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by

MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without

there being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Though I came to know about the notification I did not prefer to put in an

Application against such notification. He testified that he is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-

10 is the representation given by the I Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy

notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point of

controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been an

engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which he claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5707

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is

bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

shortlisted candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor

her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

5708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement

was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I

Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually

his Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1478.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कुमारी जप्रया डी के के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-15/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-105]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1478.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 15/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Kum. Priya D K which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-105]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 15/2018

I Party

II Party

Kum. Priya D K,

D/o Dharanendrappa K,

667/3, Baleholada

Siddalingappa Road, Hondada

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5709

Road,

DAVANAGERE – 577 001.

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 03.05.2015 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff;

that she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours

per day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she

was deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 02.07.2016 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law. As per Section 25N of the ID Act, the II Party should have filed application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench her services with copy to her; that due to the

retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does not know any

other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the nature of work

done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised an industrial

dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal to declare

the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate her into

service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary benefits

from the date of her appointment 03.05.2015 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job

on daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 03.05.2015 at its Davanagere I Branch and

continued to work for One year till 02.07.2016. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party

5710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and she was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the two vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in

a clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for One year as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for

permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been

given by the II Party that she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-2, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish her case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 02.07.2016 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 25.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the

Ex W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a

daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter

by any authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis

depending upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the

Government of Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely

testified that since the I Party was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made

from her wage towards Provident Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The

circumstances explained by MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged

only as a daily wager without there being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance

being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I

Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one

post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5711

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which she claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it

is bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

shortlisted candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor

her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

5712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the

respective years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she

performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of

service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a

case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails

and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1479.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती िाजलनी एच अर के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-19/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-107]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1479.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 19/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Smt. Shalini H R which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-107]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 19/2018

I Party

II Party

Smt. Shalini H R,

W/o Yogesh N C,

D No. 24, II Cross,

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5713

Hosananjapura,

Grama Post: Hosasiddapura,

BHADRAVATHI – 577 301.

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 01.10.2008 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff;

that she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours

per day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she

was deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval

application seeking permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under

Section 25N of the Act; that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run

her family and that she does not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh

entrants in her place and the nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal

and malafide; that she raised an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present

petition requesting this Tribunal to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the

provisions of ID Act; reinstate her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with

continuity of service and ancillary benefits from the date of her appointment 01.10.2008 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job

on daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the back wages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-13 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

5714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 01.10.2008 at its Bhadravathi Branch and

continued to work for nine years till 18.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party

and she was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the nine vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in

a clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for nine years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for

permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been

given by the II Party that she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

Ex W-2 was produced by the I Party to bring home the appreciation made by the management on her

service to make the Bhadravathi Branch as an error free branch. This document also does not render any aid or

assistance to substantiate her claim for permanency or regularization in the post she worked. Ex W-11 is also a

similar document like Ex W-2.

11.

The purpose of production of Ex W-3 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-3, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-3 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish her case.

12.

Ex W-4 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-4 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

13.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-5. Ex W-6 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the

Ex W-5 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a

daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter

by any authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis

depending upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the

Government of Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely

testified that since the I Party was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made

from her wage towards Provident Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The

circumstances explained by MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged

only as a daily wager without there being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance

being out of place.

14.

Ex W-7 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-8 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-9 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-10 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5715

documents from various branches. Ex W-12 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-13 is the representation given by the I

Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one

post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

15.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which she claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another (2001 1 SCC 37).

16.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

17. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

18.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it

is bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

19.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

5716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

shortlisted candidates. However, as already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment

Exchange nor her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

20.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Back wages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently holding that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

21.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the

respective years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she

performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of

service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a

case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails

and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

22.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

23.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1480.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कुमारी ददव्या एस ृी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-21/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-108]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1480.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Kum. Divya S P which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-108]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5717

I D No. 21/2018

I Party

II Party

Kum. Divya S P,

D/o K N Shashikumar,

Near Marikamba Temple, 6th

Cross, C K Pura, Kelagote,

CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 04.06.2011 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff;

that she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours

per day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she

was deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval

application seeking permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under

Section 25N of the Act; that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run

her family and that she does not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh

entrants in her place and the nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal

and malafide; that she raised an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present

petition requesting this Tribunal to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the

provisions of ID Act; reinstate her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with

continuity of service and ancillary benefits from the date of her appointment 04.06.2011 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job

on daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the back wages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 04.06.2011 at its Chitradurga Branch and

continued to work for Six years till 18.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party

and she was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Seven vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by

her from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other

workers. Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was

appointed in a clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate

continuous and uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for

permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been

given by the II Party that she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-2, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish her case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the

Ex W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a

daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter

by any authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis

depending upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the

Government of Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely

testified that since the I Party was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made

from her wage towards Provident Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The

circumstances explained by MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged

only as a daily wager without there being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance

being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5719

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I

Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one

post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which she claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it

is bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

5720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

shortlisted candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor

her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the

respective years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she

performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of

service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the

provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a

case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails

and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1481.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कीधारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कुमारी दीृा जाधव के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-22/2018)को जजसादक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025को प्राप्त ुएअ

थाl

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-109]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1481.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2018) of the Central GovernmentIndustrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Kum. Deepa Jadhav which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-109]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―ShramSadan‖,

G GPalya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5721

I D No.22/2018

I Party

II Party

Kum. Deepa Jadhav,

D/o Ganeshappa Jadhav,

Azad Nagara, II Cross,

Gopalapura Main Road,

CHITRADURGA – 577 501.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1stparty workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Partyin a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 07.09.2011by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay/ retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her.She was retrenched from the

services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of law

and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking permission

from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act; that due to

the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does not know

any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the nature of

work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide;that she raised an

industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal to

declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate her

into service with full backwages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary benefits

from the date of her appointment 07.09.2011with cost.

2.

The 2ndParty in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made are

false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the II

Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on daily

wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka

from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the specified

job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice, retrenchment

compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of ID Act and the

question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has prayed for

dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following pointsarise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3: Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 07.09.2011at its ChitradurgaBranch and continued

to work for Six years till 18.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party and she was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with an assurance

5722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for the days of her

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called for

an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been submitted by

her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification calling for

applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the notice board.

She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she testified that she

was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served in the II Party. Ex

W-1 series are the Seven vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her from the II Party

LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those vouchers

would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a clear vacancy by

undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service

of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited from

imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated that no

order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order from the

management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather regularization in the

job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that she would be given

permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the Regional

Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to disengage all the

daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers continuing by

virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by the I Party. It

is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the confidential

communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I Party to establish

her case.

11.

Ex W-3dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager seeking

regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 18.12.2017stating the same as

retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despitehaving no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-4

representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager

on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon the

needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application filed

by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point of

controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been an

engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5723

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District Judge,

Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana

vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot

be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar

posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for

regular workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of

recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In

other words the requirements for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other

provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be

transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be

equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the

minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State ofHaryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he holds

no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she performed under

the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was engaged by the II

Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I Party was for meeting

the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work performed is thus well

founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held to

be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in the

procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial recruitment

and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the all-important

condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made against the

Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I party

is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work” (emphasis

supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of valid

support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her engagement

was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated 10.02.2025

awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two decades of service

he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down by the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual Employment terminates

5724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the

period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made permanent, if the

original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal position settled at

rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement, regularization,

continuity of service or backwages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4:In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1482.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कुमारी रुहीना के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-24/2018)को जजसादक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025को प्राप्त ुएअ थाl

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-110]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1482.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2018) of the Central GovernmentIndustrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Kum. Ruheenawhich was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-110]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―ShramSadan‖,

G GPalya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No.24/2018

I Party

II Party

Kum. Ruheena,

The Senior Divisional Manager,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5725

D/o Ahamed Hussain,

Behind Bank of India,

Himmath Nagara, JCR Extn.,

CHITRADURGA – 577 501

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1stparty workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Partyin a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 01.10.2011by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay/ retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her.She was retrenched from the

services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full backwages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 01.10.2011 with cost.

2.

The 2ndParty in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following pointsarise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3: Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 01.10.2011 at its ChitradurgaBranch and continued

to work for Sixyears till 18.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party and she was

5726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for the days of her

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Sevenvouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a

clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

11.

Ex W-3dated 25.12.2017is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager seeking

regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 16.12.2017stating the same as

retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despitehaving no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-4

representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager

on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post.Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5727

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State ofHaryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

5728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or backwages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4:In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1483.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में,

केन्रीय सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री रजव कुमार टी के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-27/2018)को जजसादक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ थाl

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-111]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1483.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 27/2018) of the Central GovernmentIndustrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri Ravikumar Twhich was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-111]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―ShramSadan‖,

G GPalya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No.27/2018

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5729

I Party

II Party

Shri Ravikumar T,

S/o Thippeswamy,

Behind PVTC, Near Double

Water tank, Gandhinagar,

CHALLAKERE – 577 522.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1stparty workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Partyin a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 23.12.2010by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the evening hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay/ retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him.He was retrenched from the

services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his family and that he does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in his place and the

nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that he raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

him into service with full backwages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of his appointment 23.12.2010 with cost.

2.

The 2ndParty in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed,his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following pointsarise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3: Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

5730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 09.01.2012 at its ChallakereBranch and continued

to work for Sevenyears till 16.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party and he was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to himhe was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for the days of his

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been submitted

by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification calling for

applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the notice board.

He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he testified that he

was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in the II Party. Ex

W-1 series are fourvouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from the II Party LIC.

The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those vouchers would

never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear vacancy by

undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service

of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3dated 25.12.2017is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager seeking

regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 16.12.2017stating the same as

retrenchment. In Ex W-3he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despitehaving no allegations against him.

12.

On 27.12.2017he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-4

representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager

on need basis due to office exigencies and he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. His engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days heworked, no deduction was made from his wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to him also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. He did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. He

testified that he is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5731

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which he claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State ofHaryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he performed

under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he was engaged

by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I Party was

for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work performed

is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in

R V Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES)

5732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or backwages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement was

in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party

failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually his

Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4:In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1484.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री महंतेि जे के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-28/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-112]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1484.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri Mahantesh J which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-112]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5733

I D No. 28/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri Mahantesh J,

S/o Janappa,

Bommankatte Village,

Post : Gunderi,

Tal : Holalkere,

CHITRADURGA – 577 526.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 15.05.2012 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was

retrenched from the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without

following due process of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval

application seeking permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under

Section 25N of the Act; that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his

family and that he does not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh

entrants in his place and the nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal

and malafide; that he raised an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present

petition requesting this Tribunal to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the

provisions of ID Act; reinstate him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with

continuity of service and ancillary benefits from the date of his appointment 15.05.2012 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by

the II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As

the specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent

has prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as

Assistant on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended

by the I Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-9 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both

sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

5734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 15.05.2012 at its Holalkere Satellite Branch and

continued to work for Five years till 18.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party

and he was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for

the days of his engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he

testified that he was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in

the II Party. Ex W-1 series are three vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from

the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those

vouchers would never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear

vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Five years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification

for LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements

and there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash,

debited from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1

reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an

appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for

permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been

given by the II Party that he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily

wagers continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably

explained by the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody

of Ex W-2, the confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any

help to the I Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 15.12.2018 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, purported to be in

response to Ex W-4 representation. Ex W-7 is shown to be the Joint discussion conducted by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(C) in the matter on 05.02.2018. However, the conciliation failure report produced by the I Party

issued by the ALC(C) would demonstrate that the conciliation was commenced from 08.01.2018, seemingly much

prior to the Application submitted by the I Party. In short there are altogether obvious mismatching of dates in the

respective documents produced by the I Party. Anyhow, the ultimate fact emerging is that the Conciliation attempt

was ended in failure which caused the I Party to approach this Court seeking redressal of his grievance.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. Ex W-8 is also a similar application filed by the I Party before the

Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the conciliation proceedings. Ex

W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of documents from various branches.

During cross-examination WW 1 testified the II Party has called for application for Assistant Post and he is not

eligible to file application to the said post.

14.

All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager on

need basis due to office exigencies and he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any authority.

His engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon the needs of

the office and not as a temporary employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka Gazette

Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since the I Party was

paid wages counting the number of days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to him also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5735

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

15.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further

requirement of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits

sought for, relied upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be

observed that the I Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis

of which he claims reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In

order to high light the said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and

others vs. District Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

16.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be

treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts.

Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers,

nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not

selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for

selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the

liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary

jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to.

They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can

they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he

was engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the

I Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the

work performed is thus well founded.

17. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to

do so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is

held to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some

flaws in the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

18.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006

(4) SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the

contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of

his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was

not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to

prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an

end or of ad hoc employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the

instant case the I party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration

of work” (emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is

bereft of valid support and devoid of merit.

19.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners

therein were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from

5736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

shortlisted candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor

her engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

20.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or

made permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So

the legal position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of

reinstatement, regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

21.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement

was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I

Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually

his Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

22.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

23.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1485.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री भागडव जी गोखले के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-30/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-113]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1485.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 30/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri Bhargav G Gokhale which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-113]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5737

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 30/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri Bhargav G Gokhale,

S/o Gopinath G Gokhale,

Azad Road,

SORABA – 577 429.

Dist : Shivamogga

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 14.08.2008 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 15.12.2017 in the evening hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without following due process

of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his family and that he does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in his place and the

nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that he raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of his appointment 14.08.2008 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

5738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-8 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 14.08.2008 at its Sorab Satelite Branch and

continued to work for Four years till 15.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party and

he was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with an

assurance of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for the

days of his engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been submitted

by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification calling for

applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the notice board.

He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he testified that he

was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in the II Party. No

concrete material are forth coming from his side to prove payment of wage from the II Party.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. MW 1 reiterated that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them

on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for

himself to be entitled for permanency or rather regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called

assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that he would be given permanency in service along with

equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-1 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-1, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-1 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-2 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 15.12.2017 stating the same as

retrenchment. In Ex W-2 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 15.12.2018 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-3. Ex W-4 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-3

representation. Ex W-6 is shown to be the Joint discussion conducted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) in

the matter on 05.02.2018. However, the conciliation failure report produced by the I Party issued by the ALC(C)

would demonstrate that the conciliation was commenced from 08.01.2018, seemingly much prior to the Application

submitted by the I Party. In short there are altogether obvious mismatching of dates in the respective documents

produced by the I Party. Anyhow, the ultimate fact emerging is that the Conciliation attempt was ended in failure

which caused the I Party to approach this Court seeking redressal of his grievance. All along, the II Party has

adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5739

he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any authority. His engagement was purely on daily

wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary

employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to

time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since the I Party was paid wages counting the number of

days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards Provident Fund and payment of bonus to him also

did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II

Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there being any assurance of permanency of service

and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-5 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. Ex W-7 is also a similar application filed by the I Party before the Conciliation

Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the conciliation proceedings. Ex W-8 is the letter

issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of documents from various branches. Though he knew

that the II Party has called for applications for the post of Assistant he has not applied for the said post as he is not

eligible to file application to the said post.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which he claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he performed

under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he was engaged

by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I Party was

for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work performed

is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

5740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement was

in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party

failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually his

Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1486.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री दिडन अर. के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-31/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-114]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1486.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri Darshan R which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-114]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5741

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 31/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri Darshan R,

S/o Rajappa S,

N S Road,

CHANNAGIRI – 577 213.

Dist : Davanagere

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 02.09.2013 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without following due process

of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his family and that he does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in his place and the

nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that he raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of his appointment 02.09.2013 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

5742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-10 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 02.09.2013 at its Channagiri Branch and continued

to work for Four years till 18.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party and he was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for the days of his

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been submitted

by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification calling for

applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the notice board.

He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he testified that he

was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in the II Party. Ex

W-1 series are two vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from the II Party LIC.

The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those vouchers would

never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear vacancy by

undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service

of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 09.03.2018 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same as

retrenchment. In Ex W-3 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 10.03.2018 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-4. Ex W-6 is shown to be the Joint discussion conducted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) in

the matter on 05.02.2018. However, the conciliation failure report produced by the I Party issued by the ALC(C)

would demonstrate that the conciliation was commenced from 08.01.2018, seemingly much prior to the Application

submitted by the I Party. In short there are altogether obvious mismatching of dates in the respective documents

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5743

produced by the I Party. Anyhow, the ultimate fact emerging is that the Conciliation attempt was ended in failure

which caused the I Party to approach this Court seeking redressal of his grievance. All along, the II Party has

adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager on need basis due to office exigencies and

he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any authority. His engagement was purely on daily

wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon the needs of the office and not as a temporary

employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka Gazette Notification revised from time to

time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since the I Party was paid wages counting the number of

days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards Provident Fund and payment of bonus to him also

did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1 substantiates the contention raised by the II

Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there being any assurance of permanency of service

and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-5 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. Ex W-7 is also a similar application filed by the I Party before the Conciliation

Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the conciliation proceedings. Ex W-8 is the letter

issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of documents from various branches. Ex W-9 is the

copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. He did not

prefer to put in an Application against such notification. He testified that he is not eligible to file application to the

said post. Ex W-10 is the representation given by the I Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her

to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which he claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he performed

under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he was engaged

by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I Party was

for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work performed

is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

5744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement was

in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party

failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually his

Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1487.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री हरीिा ए डी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-62/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-115]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5745

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1487.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 62/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri Harisha A D which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-115]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 62/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri Harisha A D,

S/o Siddappa,

P O Nanditavare,

Tal : Harihara – 577 601,

Dist : Davanagere

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 02.04.2012 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without following due process

of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his family and that he does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in his place and the

nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that he raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

5746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of his appointment 02.04.2012 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the back wages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 02.04.2012 at its Harihara Branch and continued to

work for Six years till 16.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party and he was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for the days of his

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been submitted

by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification calling for

applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the notice board.

He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he testified that he

was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in the II Party. Ex

W-1 series are five vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from the II Party LIC.

The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those vouchers would

never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear vacancy by

undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service

of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5747

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same as

retrenchment. In Ex W-3 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 27.12.2017 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-4

representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager

on need basis due to office exigencies and he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. His engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to him also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. He did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. He

testified that he is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point of

controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been an

engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which he claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he performed

under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he was engaged

by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I Party was

for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work performed

is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

5748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement was

in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party

failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually his

Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5749

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1488.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ऄजभलाष एस के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-64/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-116]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1488.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 64/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri Abhilash S which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-116]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 64/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri Abhilash S,

S/o Shekharan M,

CMC 26, Dhanabhagya Nilaya, Near Petrol

Bunk, Old Bullapura,

BHADRAVATHI - 577 301.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.2013 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

5750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without following due process

of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his family and that he does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in his place and the

nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that he raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of his appointment 01.04.2013 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-9 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 01.04.2013 at its Bhadravathi Branch and

continued to work for Four years till 18.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party and

he was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with an

assurance of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for the

days of his engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been submitted

by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification calling for

applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the notice board.

He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he testified that he

was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in the II Party. Ex

W-1 series are two vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from the II Party LIC.

The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those vouchers would

never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear vacancy by

undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service

of the I Party under the II Party for Four years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5751

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking reinstatement and regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 18.12.2017

stating the same as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without

notice and without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 27.12.2017 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-4

representation. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-4

representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager

on need basis due to office exigencies and he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. His engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to him also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. He testified he had applied for the said post and he is not aware as to what

developed there on.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which he claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

5752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he performed

under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he was engaged

by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I Party was

for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work performed

is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement was

in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party

failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually his

Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

A W A R D

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5753

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1489.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससड हजवी आंजीजनयठरग कॉृोरेिन; मेससड समानता एंड कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

जभलाइ श्रजमक सभा के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-106/2015) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-26011/28/2015-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1489.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 106/2015) of the Central Government Industrial

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

employers in relation to M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation; M/s Samanta & Co. Ltd. and Bhilai Shramik

Sabha which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L- 26011/28/2015-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/106/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The Chief Secretary,

Bhilai Shramik Sabha, Bhilai Block No. 10/2,

Street – 15/B, Central Avenue-24 Unit, Sector-2,

Bhilai Nagar, Distt. – Durg (CG)

Workman

Vs

1. M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation,

Plant Plaza Road, Dhurwa,

Distt. – Ranchi (Jharkhand)

2. M/s Samanta & Co. Ltd., Sub Contractor

of M/s HEC Ltd., Plot No. 419/2, House No.1,

Street No.1, Kanchapuram Complex,

Risali Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 01st day of July - 2025)

As per letter dated 02/11/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification

No. L-26011/28/2015-(IR(M)) dt. 02/11/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:

5754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether the action of M/s Samanta & Company, Sub Contractor of M/s Heavy Engineering in

removing Shri Girdhar and 167 other without giving notice and retrenchment benefit is justified? If so,

what relief to Shri Girdhar and 167 others workmen entitled to?‖

According to the Workman Union, their Registration No. is 2764 and the Workman Girdhari with 167 others

mentioned in the list attached are members of the Union. They have been regularly working since 2008 in the

Overhandling Plant and Coal Handling Plant of Bhilai Steel Cement under the contracts. The HEC plant is the

main contractor and M/s Samanta and Company is the sub-contractor. When the Workman Union raised the issue

of none payment of wages of the Workman engaged by the sub-contractor M/s Samanta and Company, they

illegally terminated these workman without any notice or compensation. The Union raised dispute in this respect

which could not be conciliated, hence, reference was sent to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government.

According to the Workmen Union, the termination of services of these workmen without notice or

compensation and without approval of the Competent Authority is in violation of Section 25(F), 25(G), 25(H)

and 25(N) of the Act. Hence, is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. These workmen have been continuously working

since 2008 till the date of termination of their services by M/s Samanta & Company. The Workmen Union has

requested that holding the action of Management illegal, these Workmen be held entitled to be reinstated with all

back-wages and benefits.

In their written statement of defense, filed by M/s Samanta & Company, they have taken a case that firstly, the

dispute is not maintainable because the Workmen Union directly approached the Labour Commissioner before

approaching the Management with respect to their grievances. It is further the case of contesting Management

that, they were working on a project and execution of the workers allotted to them as contractors was dependant

on fulfilling of drawing, site plant and raw material etc. there is continuity of work, hence, though the workmen

might have worked in the projects in different spell of time but none of them worked continuously with the

Management as claimed by them. The management further submitted that they have deposited the PF dues of

these Workmen and have also denied that these Workmen were terminated from job. Rather they themselves left

the job in different spell of time between 2009 to 2014. Hence, according to Management, their action is not in

violation of the Act. The Management has requested that the reference be answered against the Workmen Union.

In evidence, the Workmen Union has filed a bunch of Photocopy documents, but they have been not proved it.

None of the parties have produce any evidence in form of affidavit or proved documents.

On the argument stage also, none was present from the side of Workmen Union, argument of Shri Rakesh

Shrivastava Learned Counsel for Management of M/s Samanta & Company were heard. No written arguments

have been field by any of the parties. I have gone through the record also.

From perusal of record in the light of arguments, the reference itself is the issue for determination.

It is the case of the Workmen Union, that they have worked continuously with Management of M/s Samanta

and Company since 2008 till date of their disengagement and have completed more than 240 days in employment

in every year including the year preceding the date of their disengagement. This allegation has been denied by

Management. Hence, the burden to prove this fact of continuous employment is on the Workmen Union in which

they have been failed, because they neither proved any document nor have examine any witness, hence holding

the continuous engagement of the Workmen with the Management as alleged by Workmen Union not proved, it is

held that, the action of termination of services of these Workmen is not in violation of the Act.

In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the Workmen

Union and is answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 01/07/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1490.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कुमारी सजवता जी अर के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-16/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-118]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5755

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1490.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 16/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Kum. Savita G R which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-118]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 16/2018

I Party

II Party

Kum. Savita G R,

D/o G Raja Rao,

D No. 991/12, Bhagath Singh Nagara, Behind

KSRTC,

DAVANGERE – 577 002.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 27.07.2010 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; ; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 27.07.2010 with cost.

5756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 27.07.2010 at its Davanagere II Branch and

continued to work for Eight years till 27.07.2010. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party

and she was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Eight vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a

clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Eight years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5757

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 27.07.2010 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex

W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

5758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1491.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती जिरागुप्ृी जगररजा के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-17/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-119]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5759

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1491.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 17/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Smt. Shiraguppi Girija which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-119]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 17/2018

I Party

II Party

Smt. Shiraguppi Girija,

W/o Veeresh, S A Ravindranath Nagara,

Lokikere Road, Industrial Area,

DAVANGERE – 577 005.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 23.08.2009 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 23.08.2009 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

5760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 23.08.2009 at its Davanagere II Branch and

continued to work for Nine years till 16.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party

and she was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Six vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a

clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Nine years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 23.08.2009 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex

W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5761

wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

5762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1492.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती जवजयलक्ष्मी डी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-20/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-120]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5763

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1492.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Smt. Vijayalakshmi D which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-120]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 20/2018

I Party

II Party

Smt. Vijayalakshmi D,

W/o Lakshmanarao Kokate,

Marnami Bile, New Ajjampura Road, BIRUR –

577 116.

Dist : Chickamagalur

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 24.04.2010 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 24.04.2010 with cost.

5764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 24.04.2010 at its Bhadravathi Branch and

continued to work for Seven years till 18.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party

and she was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Eight vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a

clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Seven years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5765

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex

W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

5766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1493.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कुमारी ममता एस के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट

केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-23/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-121]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5767

S.O. 1493.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Kum. Mamatha S which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-121]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 23/2018

I Party

II Party

Kum. Mamatha S,

D/o Siddalingappa,

Janukonda, Post : Pandarahalli,

Dt :CHITRADURGA - 577 555

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 01.06.2011 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 18.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 01.06.2011 with cost.

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

5768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 01.06.2011at its Chitradurga Branch and continued

to work for Six years till 18.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party and she was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for the days of her

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Seven vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a

clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5769

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex

W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she was not selected to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party to the

Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

5770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1494.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री बालाजी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-25/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-122]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5771

S.O. 1494.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Shri Balaji which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-122]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 25/2018

I Party

II Party

Shri Balaji,

S/o Parashurama,

Behind PVTC, Near Double Water Tank,

Gandhinagara,

CHALLAKERE – 577 522.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

he was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 20.11.2010 by

obtaining an Application and he has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; he was also assured with

regularization of his services for the services rendered by him and that he was doing the duties of regular staff; that

he was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying him overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb him to the permanent post he was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that he was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that he was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against him. He was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying him retrenchment compensation and without following due process

of law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment he is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run his family and that he does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in his place and the

nature of work done by him is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that he raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived he preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

him into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of his appointment 20.11.2010 with cost.

5772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that he was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, his services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that he was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined himself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed himself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 20.10.2010 at its Challakere Branch and continued

to work for Seven years till 16.12.2017. His case is that he has put in an application before the II Party and he was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to him he was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of his service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and he has been paid daily wage for the days of his

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting him to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. He did not produce copy of application said to have been submitted

by him before the II Party to the said post. Though he claimed that the II Party did publish notification calling for

applications on their notice board, he could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the notice board.

He was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination he testified that he

was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. He was given wages for the period he served in the II Party. Ex

W-1 series are four vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by him from the II Party LIC.

The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers. Those vouchers would

never improve his case, much less it substantiates his contention that he was appointed in a clear vacancy by

undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service

of the I Party under the II Party for Seven years as contended by him.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for himself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

he would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish his case.

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5773

seeking regularization of his service being aggrieved by stoppage of his service w.e.f. 18.12.2017 stating the same as

retrenchment. In Ex W-3 he grieved before the authority that he was pulled out from job without notice and without

payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against him.

12.

On 27.12.2017 he took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hubli

under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex W-4

representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager

on need basis due to office exigencies and he was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. His engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. His pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during his evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days he worked, no deduction was made from his wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to him also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. He did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. He

testified that he is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point of

controversy as to the status of employment at the time of his engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been an

engagement as Daily Wager, he does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of his service and he has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which he claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in his pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works he performed

under the II Party, much less any material is placed by him as to the nature of the duties for which he was engaged

by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I Party was

for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work performed

is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

5774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats his claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 seires indicate the payment made to the I Party in the year

2015 alone for the month of March and November and there is no valid material proving that his engagement was

continuous in nature and hhe performed duties under the II Party continuously till the date of his disengagement so

as to show that his tenure of service at a time was more than 240 days in a calendar year and his disengagement was

in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party

failed to establish a case on merit justifying the relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually his

Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered

accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1495.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती महबूबी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-26/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-123]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5775

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1495.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 26/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Smt. Mahaboobi which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-123]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 26/2018

I Party

II Party

Smt. Mahaboobi,

W/o C R Subanalla,

Near Nyaya Bele Angadi,

Post : Dodderi,

CHALLAKERE – 577 522.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Rajesh Shetty

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 01.06.2010 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 01.06.2010 with cost.

5776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 01.06.2010 at its Challakere Branch and continued

to work for Seven years till 16.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party and she was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for the days of her

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Five vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a

clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Seven years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5777

11.

Ex W-3 dated 25.12.2017 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 16.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 27.12.2017 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex

W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

5778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1496.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और कुमारी चांदनी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-29/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-124]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5779

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1496.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Kum. Chandini which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-124]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 29/2018

I Party

II Party

Kum. Chandini,

D/o Ganapathi,

Dombesara,

ULLUR POST – 577 412

Sagara Tq : Dist Shivamogga.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 30.03.2013 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the evening hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 30.03.2013 with cost.

5780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-11 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 30.03.2013 at its Sagara Branch and continued to

work for Four years till 16.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party and she was

interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with an assurance

of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent Assistants. The

above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was engaged by the LIC

purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for the days of her

engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 series are the Three vouchers produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her

from the II Party LIC. The vouchers reflect the wages received by the I Party and similarly placed other workers.

Those vouchers would never improve her case, much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a

clear vacancy by undergoing regular recruitment process. Those vouchers would never indicate continuous and

uninterrupted service of the I Party under the II Party for Six years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5781

11.

Ex W-3 dated 20.01.2018 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 16.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 20.01.2018 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex

W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. As per Ex W-7 the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) conducted Joint

Discussion on 05.02.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date. Ex W-8 is also a similar application

filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more documents from the II party during the

conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO for collection of photocopies of

documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post of Recruitment of Assistant

published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. She did not prefer to put in an Application against such notification. She

testified that she is not eligible to file application to the said post. Ex W-11 is the representation given by the I Party

to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified and if not, to keep vacant one post of

Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

5782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

AWARD

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1497.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती ऄन्नृूणाड टी एस के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, बैंगलोर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-34/2018) को जजसा दक

ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त

ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-125]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5783

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1497.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2018) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Smt. Annapoorna T S which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-125]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

―Shram Sadan‖,

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore – 560 022.

DATED

:

17th JULY 2025

PRESENT :

SMT. K P INDIRA

Presiding Officer

I D No. 34/2018

I Party

II Party

Smt. Annapoorna T S,

D/o Srinivasa T O.,

Hossgrahara – 577 432,

Post : Thirthahalli,

Dist : Shivamogga.

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

100th Feet Road,

Gopalagowda Road,

SHIVAMOGGA - 577 205.

Appearances

I Party :

Shri M Rama Rao

Authorized Representative

II Party :

Shri Vijayendra D Joshi

Advocate

1.

This is a Petition filed under Section 2A of the ID act. The claim set forth by the 1st party workman is that

she was appointed as an Assistant by the 2nd Party in a clear vacancy of Office Assistant w.e.f. 25.04.2011 by

obtaining an Application and she has attended the interview conducted by the II Party; she was also assured with

regularization of her services for the services rendered by her and that she was doing the duties of regular staff; that

she was not paid with minimum scales as applicable to the Assistants and took work for more than eight hours per

day without paying her overtime wages; inspite of repeated requests to absorb her to the permanent post she was

deprived with the benefits of the permanent employees; that she was not provided with Provident Fund, Bonus

Benefits though other employees were extended with the same; that she was suddenly retrenched from the services

of the II Party orally from 16.12.2017 in the morning hours by the Branch Manager without notice, without payment

of notice pay / retrenchment compensation though there were no allegations against her. She was retrenched from

the services without prior intimation or paying her retrenchment compensation and without following due process of

law and that the II Party has retrenched more than 20 workmen without filing approval application seeking

permission from the appropriate Government to retrench their services as mandated under Section 25N of the Act;

that due to the retrenchment she is facing irreparable hardship, agony and unable to run her family and that she does

not know any other work than the Assistant job; that the II Party has employed fresh entrants in her place and the

nature of work done by her is perennial in nature and taking the new entrants is illegal and malafide; that she raised

an industrial dispute since no settlement was arrived she preferred to file the present petition requesting this Tribunal

to declare the retrenchment of service by the II Party as not in accordance with the provisions of ID Act; reinstate

her into service with full back wages and other benefits, regularization with continuity of service and ancillary

benefits from the date of her appointment 25.04.2011 with cost.

5784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

The 2nd Party in their Counter Statement rebutted the Claim Statement stating that all the averments made

are false; that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 are not applicable to the temporary employees appointed by the

II Party; that the I Party is put to strict proof of the above averments; that she was doing some unspecified job on

daily wages on need basis and that they were paying wages as per the notification issued by the Government of

Karnataka from time to time and therefore the question of extending Provident Fund Benefits does not arise. As the

specified job was completed, her services were disengaged as per law and the question of issuing notice,

retrenchment compensation or notice pay does not arise and that the II Party has not contravened the provisions of

ID Act and the question of reinstatement with the backwages and other benefits does not arise. The Respondent has

prayed for dismissal of the Petition with cost.

3.

On the rival pleadings the following points arise for consideration:

―01. Whether the I Party has succeeded in proving that she was appointed by the II Party as Assistant

on temporary basis in a clear vacancy as contended?

02. Whether the disengagement of the I Party from job by the II Party is illegal as contended by the I

Party?

03. Whether the I Party is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?

04. What is the proper order to be passed?‖

4.

The I party has got examined herself as WW 1 and Ex W-1 to Ex W-12 are got marked. From the side of

the II Party MW 1 is examined and Ex M-1 is marked.

5.

Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Written notes of Arguments are also submitted by both sides.

6.

POINTS NO. 1 TO 3 : Since the matter to be considered and adjudicated on these points are intertwined

and interwoven, all these points are discussed together.

7.

The I Party WW 1 claimed herself as a temporary employee / Assistant in Class III Category in a clear

vacancy of Office Assistant under the II Party LIC of India since 25.04.2011 at its Thirthahalli Branch and

continued to work for Seven years till 16.12.2017. Her case is that she has put in an application before the II Party

and she was interviewed by the officials of the LIC at the Branch Office. According to her she was appointed with

an assurance of regularization of her service within a few years coupled with the benefits applicable to permanent

Assistants. The above claim of the I Party is stoutly denied by the II Party on the precincts that the I Party was

engaged by the LIC purely on daily wages to perform some unspecified jobs and she has been paid daily wage for

the days of her engagement. Such payment according to the II Party has never been meant as ―SALARY‖.

8.

Among the documents produced and proved by WW 1, there is nothing indicting her to have been called

for an interview for the post of Office Assistant. She did not produce copy of application said to have been

submitted by her before the II Party to the said post. Though she claimed that the II Party did publish notification

calling for applications on their notice board, she could not specify the date of notification or its exhibition on the

notice board. She was not issued with any appointment letter by the II Party. On meticulous cross-examination she

testified that she was appointed on temporary basis as daily wager. She was given wages for the period she served

in the II Party. Ex W-1 is one voucher produced by the I Party to prove the payments received by her from the II

Party LIC. The voucher reflect the wages received by the I Party. This voucher would never improve her case,

much less it substantiates her contention that she was appointed in a clear vacancy by undergoing regular

recruitment process. This voucher would never indicate continuous and uninterrupted service of the I Party under

the II Party for Seven years as contended by her.

9.

MW 1 the Divisional Manager of the II Party specifically deposed that there is no particular notification for

LIC separately for daily wage employees and such daily wagers were engaged based on need and requirements and

there is no prescribed recruitment procedure for engaging them. Their wages were paid monthly in cash, debited

from imprest Cash Account No. 111772. This fact stood revealed from Ex W-1 series vouchers. MW 1 reiterated

that no order is issued to such persons for engaging them on daily wage. So without getting an appointment order

from the management the I Party worker cannot qualify for herself to be entitled for permanency or rather

regularization in the job. There is no basis for the so called assurance alleged to have been given by the II Party that

she would be given permanency in service along with equivalent other benefits.

10.

The purpose of production of Ex W-2 by the I Party, the confidential communication issued by the

Regional Manager (P&IR) to all SDM under South Central Zones dated 25.11.2017 alerting the divisions to

disengage all the daily wagers who are continued without any court case and calling for the number of daily wagers

continuing by virtue of court cases pursuant to the decision of the competent authority is not profitably explained by

the I Party. It is also not properly explained as to how the I Party / WW 1 happened to be in custody of Ex W-2, the

confidential communication addressed to the SDM by its higher-up. Anyhow Ex W-2 is not of any help to the I

Party to establish her case.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5785

11.

Ex W-3 dated 10.06.2018 is the representation made by the I Party to the Senior Divisional Manager

seeking regularization of her service being aggrieved by stoppage of her service w.e.f. 16.12.2017 stating the same

as retrenchment. In Ex W-3 she grieved before the authority that she was pulled out from job without notice and

without payment of notice pay / retrenchment compensation despite having no allegations against her.

12.

On 11.06.2018 she took up the matter for conciliation before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

Hubli under Ex W-4. Ex W-5 is the reply submitted by the II Party before the ALC(C), Hubli, in response to the Ex

W-4 representation. All along, the II Party has adopted a firm defence that the I Party was engaged only as a daily

wager on need basis due to office exigencies and she was neither recruited not given any appointment letter by any

authority. Her engagement was purely on daily wages for carrying out work on peace meal basis depending upon

the needs of the office and not as a temporary employee. Her pay of wages was as per the Government of Karnataka

Gazette Notification revised from time to time. MW 1 during her evidence precisely testified that since the I Party

was paid wages counting the number of days she worked, no deduction was made from her wage towards Provident

Fund and payment of bonus to her also did not arise for consideration. The circumstances explained by MW 1

substantiates the contention raised by the II Party that the I Party was engaged only as a daily wager without there

being any assurance of permanency of service and such alleged assurance being out of place.

13.

Ex W-6 is the application filed by the I Party before the ALC(C) calling for documents from the II party

during the conciliation proceedings. Ex W-7 is seen to have been produced to show that the Assistant Labour

Commissioner(C) conducted Joint Discussion on 02.08.2018 notifying further joint discussion to another date.

Since the very application shown to have been submitted by the I Party raising dispute before the ALC(C), Hubballi,

viz., Ex W-4 being dated 11.06.2018, there cannot be joint discussion on her application in the month of February

2018. However, the conciliation failure report issued by the Conciliation Officer produced by the I Party in the

instant clearly shows that the matter was taken up in conciliation on 02.08.2018 and no settlement has been reached.

Ex W-8 is also a similar application filed by the I Party before the Conciliation Officer calling for some more

documents from the II party during the conciliation proceedings. Ex W-9 is the letter issued by the ALC(C) to LEO

for collection of photocopies of documents from various branches. Ex W-10 is the copy of notification to the post

of Recruitment of Assistant published by the II Party on 17.09.2019. Ex W-12 is the copy of the E-receipt for having

applied for the post of Assistant. She testified that she was not selected to the said post. Ex W-11 is the

representation given by the I Party to the Chairman, LIC of India requesting to appoint her to the vacancy notified

and if not, to keep vacant one post of Office Assistant till the instant case gets over.

14.

None of the above documents produced and relied upon by the I Party renders any proof to the core point

of controversy as to the status of employment at the time of her engagement under the II Party. Indeed, had it been

an engagement as Daily Wager, she does not get entitled for any of the benefits sought in the Petition. The II Party

Management to buttress its contention that the I Party was simply disengaged as there existed no further requirement

of her service and she has not been a temporary employee capable of claiming any of the benefits sought for, relied

upon various judicial pronouncements of the Hon‘ble Apex Court. At the threshold it has to be observed that the I

Party failed in showing any Rule, Law or Regulation nor any administrative order on the basis of which she claims

reinstatement and regularization with continuity of Service and other monetory benefits. In order to high light the

said aspect the II Party has relied upon the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Subedar Singh and others vs. District

Judge, Mirzapur and another 2001 1 SCC 37.

15.

It is contextually significant to follow the dictum laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of

Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh (1996 (11) SCC 77) which reads :

―The respondents, therefore in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated

as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated

workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have

to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner

in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as

rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of

the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as

prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated

with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the

regular pay-scale of the regularly employed‖

Referring to the said legal position the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Tilak Raj and

others (2003 (6) SCC 123) held that a scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily wager, he

holds no posts. The I Party neither in her pleadings nor in evidence has made out the particular works she

performed under the II Party, much less any material is placed by her as to the nature of the duties for which she was

engaged by the II Party. The contention of the II Party in its Statement of Objection that the engagement of the I

Party was for meeting the office exigencies to attend some unspecified jobs on payment of daily wage for the work

performed is thus well founded.

5786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16. In Mohammed Ashif and others vs. State of Bihar and others (2010 (5) SCC 475), the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that the question of regularization of services of an Employee may arise only in situations where against

an available clear vacancy an appointment is made on adhoc or on-daily wage basis by an authority competent to do

so without any artificial break in service. The second situation in which the regularization could be granted is held

to be where the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy was found suffering from some flaws in

the procedure in making the appointment though the person appointing was competent to make such initial

recruitment and had otherwise followed the procedure prescribed for such recruitment. It is equally held that “the

all-important condition precedent for such regularization is that the initial entry of such employee must be made

against the Sanctioned vacancy and by following the Rules and Regulations governing such entry‖.

17.

Similarly the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006 (4)

SCC 1) held that “If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract, if it

were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is

discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service

or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by

following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular

recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.‖ Here in the instant case the I

party is claiming permanency and seeks for regularization mainly on the so called “long duration of work”

(emphasis supplied) and not on any other valid ground. The dictum quoted above defeats her claim as it is bereft of

valid support and devoid of merit.

18.

Most of the rulings placed by the I party are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Verdict of

the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in V Muthukumarasamy and others vs. The Chairman, LIC, Zonal Office

dated 21.01.2007 also does not get any application in view of the fact involved in that case as the Petitioners therein

were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and have been appointed on temporary basis from shortlisted

candidates. As already observed, the I Party herein was not sponsored by Employment Exchange nor her

engagement was in a clear vacancy by undergoing the Regular Recruitment process.

19.

The I party further relied upon on the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R V

Mohan Reddy vs. The Chairman, Karnataka Grameena Bank in WP No. 1944/2022 (L-RES) dated

10.02.2025 awarding 60% of Backwages to the Employee from the date of his termination reckoning the two

decades of service he had under the management as a Peon on daily wage. As against that, the principle laid down

by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in a plethora of rulings aforementioned consistently hold that the Casual

Employment terminates when the same is discontinued, and merely because a temporary or casual worker has been

engaged beyond the period of his employment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed into regular service or made

permanent, if the original appointment was not in terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules. So the legal

position settled at rest by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court disentitles the I party to put forth any claim of reinstatement,

regularization, continuity of service or back wages with consequential benefits.

20.

To sum up, the solitary materials viz., Ex W-1 vouchers show only pay for a single month in the respective

years and there is no valid material proving that her engagement was continuous in nature and she performed duties

under the II Party continuously till the date of her disengagement so as to show that her tenure of service at a time

was more than 240 days in a calendar year and her disengagement was in violation of the provisions of Section 25F

of the ID Act. So on legal principle and on factual matrix the I Party failed to establish a case on merit justifying the

relief sought for in the instant Industrial Dispute. Eventually her Claim Petition fails and the same is liable to be

dismissed. With this view Points No. 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

21.

POINT NO. 4: In view of the above discussion, the I party is held as not entitled for any relief.

22.

In the result, the following Award is passed

A W A R D

The Claim Petition is Dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 17.07.2025)

K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1498.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससड एयरृोटड ऄथॉररटी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और आंजडयन एयरृोट्सड कामगार

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5787

यूजनयन के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नइ ददल्ली, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-211/2017) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-11011/5/2017-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1498.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 211/2017) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/s Airports Authority of India and Indian Airports Kamgar Union which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-11011/5/2017-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.211/2017

The General Secretary, Indian Airports Kamgar Union(IAKU), Qtr. No. B-140, Pocket-A, INA Colony, New

Delhi-110023.

…Claimant

Versus

The Regional Director (NR), M/s Airport Authority of India, Operational Offices, Rangpuri, New Delhi-110037.

…Management

AWARD

1.

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-L-

11011/5/2017-IR(M) dated 20.07.2017 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

The Schedule

‗Whether the demand of the Indian Airports Kamgar Union from the management of Airports

Authority of India to withdraw he transfer order No. F. No. AAI/AT/FS/F-60/2016-EW/1569-1614

dated 24.05.2016 and office order No. AAI/RHQ-NR/AT/FS-60/Attachment/EW/2016/1555-1568 dated

20.05.2016 and the transfer of employees mentioned therein, is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to

what relived\s are the workmen entitled?‘

2.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15

days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties

involved in the dispute. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant.

3.

Rebuttal written statement was also filed by the management. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the

claimant to substantiate his claim.

4.

Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute

award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the

appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Date: 21.07.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

5788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1499.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार स्ट्टील ऄथॉररटी ऑफ़ आंजडया जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सेल एम्प्लाआज यूजनयन के बीच

ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, नइ ददल्ली, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.-220/2023) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-126]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1499.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 220/2023) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Steel Authority of India Limited and SAIL Employees Union which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-126]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.220//2023

The General Secretary, SAIL Employees Union Corporate Office, Union Room, ISPAT Bhawan, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi-110003.

…Claimant

Versus

The Director, (Personnel) Steel Authority of India Limited, ISPAT Bhawan,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

…Management

AWARD

2.

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/I-

08/2023-IR dated 12.10.2023 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi in transferring

Sh. Raj Solanki, Section Officer and General Secretary of SAIL Employees Union Corporate Office

from SAIL Corporate office at New Delhi to Central Marketing Organization, Coimbatore vide order

dated 02.03.2023, is illegal and/or unjustified and if yes, then what relief is he entitled and what

directions are necessary in this respect?‖

2.

In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file

statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15

days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties

involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the

Tribunal.

3.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. Neither

the postal article sent to the claimant, referred above, was received back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that

postal services remained unserved in the period, referred above. Therefore, every presumption lies in favor of the

fact that the above notice was served upon the claimant. Despite service of the notice, claimant opted to abstain

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5789

away from the proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not

interested in adjudication of the reference on merits.

4.

Since the workman has neither put in his appearance nor he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the management, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Dispute/Claim‘ award. Let this

award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

for publication.

Date: 18.07.2025

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1500.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड जमडवेस्ट्ट ग्रेनाआट प्राआवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और जमडवेस्ट्ट ग्रेनाआट्स प्राआवेट जलजमटेड,

सुृरवाआजर वकडसड यूजनयन के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-10/2025) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-127]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1500.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 10/2025) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/s Midwest Granite Pvt. Ltd. and Midwest Granites Pvt. Ltd., Supervisor Workers

Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-127]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 27th day of June, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 10/2025

Between:

The General Secretary,

Midwest Granites Pvt. Ltd.,

Supervisor Workers Union E2779

IFTU, Arnapalli, Ksamudram,

Warangal, Mahabubabad-506112.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

M/s Midwest Granite Pvt. Ltd.,

Sy.No. 18, Arnapally, Kesamudram,

Mahabubabad-506112.

2. The General Manager,

M/s Midwest Granite Pvt. Ltd.,

5790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

H.No.8-2-684/3/25, Road No.12,

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500036.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: Dr. K K H M Syam Sundar, advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 1/1/2025-B1 dated 20.01.2025 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s Midwest Granite Pvt. Ltd., and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―1. ―Whether the Union has Locus standi to represent the workmen involved in this disputes?‖

―2. ―Whether the allegation by the Union regarding termination of workmen by the management of M/s Midwest

Granites Pvt. Ltd., is true or false? If true, what relief the workmen are entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 10/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice and

sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-

claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 27th day of

June, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1501.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससड लासडन एंड टुब्रो जलजमटेड; नेिनल हेड ृेरोल सर्मवसेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री वी.वी.

िंकर राव के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.-39/2022) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-128]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1501.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2022) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited; National Head Payroll Services and Sri V.V Sankar

Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-128]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5791

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 16th day of July, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 39/2022

Between:

Sri V.V Sankar Rao,

D.No. 2-233, Mossayyapeta,

4th Street, Choudapalli, Village,

Atchuthapuram, Visakhapatnam-531011.

..…. Petitioner

AND

1. The Head-IR,

M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited,

Plot No. 176, Survey No. 45, D Block,

Auto Nagar, Chinagantyada Village,

Visakhapatnam-530012.

2. Sri Anuroop S.S.,

National Head Payroll Services,

M/s Service Care Pvt. Ltd., 1st floor,

2nd Main Road, Damlur Layout,

Bengaluru-560071.

….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Sri M. Bharat Chandra, advocate

For the Respondent: Sri Raman Parasuraman, advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its F.No. 8/10/2022-B1 dated 11.02.2022 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Service Care Pvt. Ltd. Contractor of M/s Larsen & Toubro

Limited, main contractor of DRDO, Project Varsha (Indian Navy), Visakhapatnam in terminating the

services of Sri V.V Sankar Rao, Ex-Safety Steward is legal and justified or not? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 39/2022 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Today case is reserved for order. Perused the record. Petitioner filed the claim petition to set aside the termination

order dated 27.1.2021 passed by Respondent and also to direct the Respondent to reinstate him into the services

with continuity of service along with back wages. Respondent filed counter and case was fixed for petitioner

evidence. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim. As

the claim of the Petitioner is not substantiated by any evidence, therefore, ‗No claim‘ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 16th day

July, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

5792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1502.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार आन्वेंटा आंडस्ट्रीज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड; मेससड एल एंड टी, एनजी हाआड्रोकाबडन; सी/ओ एचृीसीएल के प्रबंधतंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ृी रजव दकरण कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-60/2024) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-अइअर(एम)-129]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1502.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 60/2024) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to Inventaa industries Pvt. Ltd; M/s L & T, Engery Hydrocarbon; C/o HPCL and

Sri P Ravi Kiran Kumar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 06.08.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-129]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 11th day of July, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 60/2024

Between:

Sri P Ravi Kiran Kumar,

Malkapuram,

Visakhapatnam,

AP-530012.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

Inventaa industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Manjeera Majestic Commericial

No. 618 & 619, KPBH, Hyderabad-500085.

2. M/s L & T, Engery Hydrocarbon,

C/o HPCL, Visakh Refinery, Malkapuram,

Post Box No. 15, Visakhapatnam-530011.

3. The Executive Director,

C/o HPCL, Visakh Refinery, Malkapuram,

Post Box No. 15, Visakhapatnam-530011.

… Respondents

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5793

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

None

For the Respondent: Shri V.L.V. Kesava Rao, advocate of R1

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/39/2024-B1 dated 11/12/2024 referred

the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s. HPCL, Visakhapatnam and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Inventaa industries Pvt. Ltd.,

Sub-contractor of M/s L & T Energy Hydrocarbon main contractor of Hindustan petroleum Corporation

Limited, Visakh Refinery, Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sri P Ravi Kiran Kumar without

complying Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 60/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Notice sent to the

petitioner by register post returned with endorsement ―insufficient addres, H/R to sender‖ and also ―no such person

at given address‖. It seems petitioner do want to prosecute his case. Therefore, a ‗no-claim‘ Award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, Lower Division Clerk , corrected by me on this the

11th day of July, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1503.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

एलअइसी ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ृी. ऄिोक के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-179/2014) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-17012/60/2014-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1503.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 179/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to LIC of India and Sri P. Ashok which was received along with soft copy of the award by

the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-17012/60/2014-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

5794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of July, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 179/2014

Between:

Sri P. Ashok S/o Ramesh,

D.No: 16-38, Duvva (PO),

Tanuku (M),

West Godavari-534156.

..…. Petitioner

AND

1. The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

Tanuku Branch,

West Godavari Distt. -

2. The Sr. Divisional Manager

LIC of India, Divisional Office,

Jeevan Godavari, Morampudi,

Rajahmundry-

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : Shri V.V. Rama Krishna, Advocate

For the Respondent: Shri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-17012/60/2014 (IR(M)) dated 04.08.2014

referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal

between the management of LIC of India and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the removal from service of Sri P. Ashok, Ex-Temp. Class-IV LIC of India, Tanuka Branch

w.e.f. 28.1.2013 is legal and justified. If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 179/2014 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

After filing claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient opportunity

accorded to him, the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim. Perused the record. Since

the Petitioner has not substantiated his claim by any evidence, therefore, a ‗No-claim‘ award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected by me on this the 10th day of

July, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5795

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1504.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

सेल-अइएसृी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ददनेि िमाड के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, असनसोल, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-21/2017) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-26011/17/2017-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1504.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2017) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to SAIL-ISP and Shri Dinesh Sharma which was received along with soft copy of the award by the

Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-26011/17/2017-IR(M)]

SALONI, 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. 21 OF 2017

PARTIES:

Dinesh Sharma

Vs.

Management of SAIL-ISP, Burnpur

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union:

Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate

For the Management:

Mr. Ayan Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate

INDUSTRY:

Iron and Steel.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

20.06.2025

AWARD

On failure of conciliation proceeding, the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, 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), vide its Order No. L-26011/17/2017-IR(M) dated 05.12.2017 has been

pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of SAIL-ISP, Burnpur and

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

5796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s. SAIL-ISP, Burnpur, in not paying the applicable House

Rent Allowance to Sri Dinesh Sharma from September 2013 even though the workman vacated his quarters is just

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

1.

On receiving Order No. L-26011/17/2017-IR(M) dated 05.12.2017 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 21 of 2017 was registered on

19.12.2017 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.

2.

Dinesh Sharma filed written statement in this case on 12.02.2018. Fact of the case as disclosed in the

written statement is that Dinesh Sharma, bearing P.No. 66577 is a permanent employee of SAIL-ISP, Burnpur and

is posted as Sr. Technician Traffic at SAIL-ISP, Burnpur. He submitted an application before the management of

the company on 12.08.2013 for surrendering his quarters bearing No. KS-23/3&4. The two single units of quarters

were surrendered by him on 04.09.2013. The contention of the workman is that though he has surrendered and

delivered possession of the quarters on 04.09.2013, the management has not paid him any House Rent Allowance

since September 2013 after several representation in this matter. Mr. Anupam Roy, DGM (TS), SAIL-ISP,

Burnpur in his correspondence with ALC (C), Asansol on 08.05.2017 admitted that the quarters were taken over

by Town service Department on 04.09.2013 but as per internal guidelines dated 19.08.2013, House Rent

Allowance could not be granted to Dinesh Sharma. The management however failed to produce any such

guidelines dated 19.08.2013 disqualifying Dinesh Sharma from his right to shelter. Workman further contended

that management cannot deny him payment of House Rent Allowance under any circumstances. In this Industrial

Dispute raised by the union on behalf of the workman, it is contended that the workman is entitled to get House

Rent Allowance from the employer on account of his employment from September 2013.

3.

The management of the employer company contested the Industrial Dispute by filing written statement on

30.05.2018 through Mr. Anupam Roy, DGM (TS), SAIL-ISP, Burnpur. It is contended therein that the Industrial

Dispute is not maintainable under the law. It is admitted that Dinesh Sharma along with two others have

surrendered their quarters and submitted applications for payment of House Rent Allowance as per prescribed rules

of the company. The management claimed to have enquired and investigated into the matter and also heard the

concerned workman. It was found that the name of Dinesh Sharma was not recorded in the Receiving Register and

there was no entry in the Receiving Register that application had been filed on surrendering of quarters. It is

further contended that the workman is not entitled to any House Rent Allowance as prayed for and the Industrial

Dispute raised by him is liable to be dismissed.

4.

To establish his claim Dinesh Sharma has been examined as WW-1. He has reiterated the case disclosed

in the written statement and filed a copy of his application regarding surrender of his quarters bearing no. No. KS-

23/3&4, Burnpur. The copy of application appears to have been received by the representative of the company on

12.08.2013. The copy of application is admitted in evidence as Exhibit W-1. The workman stated that he has

surrendered the quarters on 04.09.2013. In his evidence, the witness produced the following documents:

(i)

Copy of application of Dinesh Sharma dated 12.08.2013 as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Letter dated 02.09.2013 issued by K.N. Bhattacharjee, Assistant Manager (Estate) addressed to

Sk. F.A. Siddique has been produced as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

A document relating to handing over possession of the quarters by Dinesh Sharma in good

condition bearing signatures of Dinesh Sharma and Sk. F.A. Siddique, the new allottee has been

produced as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

A statement regarding taking over of quarters from Dinesh Sharma and handing over to Sk. F.A.

Siddique on 04.09.2013 has been produced as Exhibit W-3.

(v)

Letter issued by Anupam Roy, DGM (TS) addressed to ALC (Central), Asansol dated

08.05.2017 has been produced as Exhibit W-5. In the said letter it is disclosed that as per internal

guidelines for payment of House Rent Allowance vide Ref. No. PL/OD/12/1291 dated

19.08.2013, House Rent Allowance may be paid to the employee in the event of non-availability

of company‘s accommodation and the employee cannot surrender his accommodation and claim

payment of House Rent Allowance. It is further stated in the letter that the application of Dinesh

Sharma was received after issuance of internal guidelines dated 19.08.2013.

Witness deposed that the application was submitted by the concerned person by hand but no

receiving stamp was affixed on the application. It is admitted that the quarters has been handed

over and the Town Service Department has received the same on 04.09.2013.

(vi)

Workman has filed a Memo No. LW/Q-L&O Pen/1682 dated 03.06.2004, the document

indicated that on vacating the Quarter No. KS-23/4 by Sri S.P. Verma on 08.06.2004, the same

was handed over to Dinesh Sharma. Documents relating to Fitment of items in the said quarters

have been collectively marked as Exhibit W-6.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5797

(vii)

Allotment letter of Quarter No. KS-23/3 in favour of Dinesh Sharma under Memo No. LW/Q-

L&O Pen/961 dated 17.05.2010 and fitment of items in respect of the quarters have been

produced as Exhibit W-7.

In his cross-examination, Dinesh Sharma deposed that he was temporarily allotted with the quarters in the year

2004 and subsequently in the year 2010. Two single units of quarters were allotted in his favour treating them as a

composite unit. Witness deposed that since he has built his own house, he surrendered company‘s quarters in the

year 2013 and he is not receiving House Rent Allowance since September 2013. Witness denied that the employer

company has issued any circular notifying that if any quarters is allotted to any employee at any point of time, he

would not be entitled to House Rent Allowance even after surrendering such quarters.

5.

Management has examined Shri Sanjay Kumar as MW-1 who filed his affidavit-in-chief in support of

management‘s case. The witness stated in his affidavit that as per rules, the company does not pay House Rent

Allowance to employees/workmen in case the housing accommodation is available for such employee. Witness

further stated that on basis of application/representation of Dinesh Sharma, a committee was constituted by

management for verification and examining the workman‘s claim that he vacated the company‘s quarters prior to

19.08.2013. The said committee looked into the records but could not find any documentary evidence to

substantiate the claim of the workman that he had submitted the application for vacating company‘s quarters on

12.08.2013. As such his claim was denied. In his Examination-in-chief, the management witness stated that

employee is entitled to 20% of basic pay as House Rent Allowance but if he has any quarters under his possession

or occupation, he will not be entitled to House Rent Allowance. In course of his cross-examination, the witness

admitted that Dinesh Sharma has surrendered his quarters on 04.09.2013 and the possession of same was taken

over by the Civil and Electrical department of the company. Management has produced some documents relating

to payment of House Rent Allowance to the employees of SAIL and internal guidelines dated 19.08.2013 which

have been collectively marked as Exhibit M-Series. It transpires from his evidence that though in the paragraph

three (3) of his affidavit he stated that as per rules of the company, no House Rent Allowance is granted to the

employees in case housing accommodation is available for such employees, he has not produced the rules in

support thereof.

6.

The crux of the issue in this case is whether Dinesh Sharma, who surrendered company‘s accommodation

on 04.09.2013 is entitled to any House Rent Allowance or not?

7.

Mr. Ayan Ranjan Mukherjee, learned advocate for the management of SAIL-ISP arguing the case

submitted that there is no dispute regarding handing over possession of allotted quarters by the Dinesh Sharma on

04.09.2013. He also concedes the facts that a person not enjoying any accommodation of the company is entitled to

House Rent Allowance but for the purpose of claiming the same he has to submit his application in a prescribed

format superscribed as ‗Format for application for grant of House Rent Allowance‘. Alternatively, learned

advocate argued that the issue of House Rent Allowance for new recruits has been covered by internal guidelines

where it is decided that in interest of uniformity, both executive and non-executive employees who want House

Rent Allowance may apply for payment of House Rent Allowance as per the standard format. It is further asserted

that the internal guidelines provide the employees who are availing House Rent Allowance facility may be

persuaded to shift to quarters and the Estate Department may write to the concerned employees advising them to

apply for quarters. In the event quarters are allotted, House Rent Allowance facilities would be withdrawn.

Learned advocate argued that since the aggrieved workman did not submit his application in standard format, he is

not entitled to receive House Rent Allowance.

8.

Mr. P.K. Das, learned advocate for the union argued that there is no internal guideline of the employer

company disqualifying the workman from receiving House Rent Allowance even when he has surrendered his

quarters. It is argued that the workman has surrendered his quarters on 04.09.2013. As such he is entitled to House

Rent Allowance from September 2013 till date.

9.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the management and union

representing the aggrieved workman. Also considered the pleading of parties and evidence adduced by them in

support of their case. Admittedly the workman who was allotted two units of quarters at different timesfor his

accommodation bearing No. KS-23/3 and No. KS-23/4, surrendered the quarters to Assistant Manager (Estate),

SAIL-IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur and his application was received by the office on 12.08.2013 (Exhibit W-1). The

said quarters was allotted to Sk. F.A. Siddiqui on 04.09.2013 and the same finds support from document filed as

Exhibit W-2, W-3 and W-4. The workman has claimed for House Rent Allowance from September 2013 which

has been denied by the management. Hence, this dispute. It is gathered from Exhibit M-Series that an internal

guideline dated 19.08.2013 has been issued by Sr. Manager (Personnel-OD) of SAIL-ISP, Burnpur bearing

No. PL/OD/12/1291, which states that in case of new employees in the company, in the event of non-availability of

accommodation, House Rent Allowance may be paid and the concerned employee on submitting application in

standard format to the concerned establishment section of the Personnel Department. It is clear that this provision

is applicable only in the case of new employees.

5798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10.

In the latter portion of the guideline it is provided that considering the present condition of K/KA type

quarters, the new ACTs/OCTs who do not accept the said quarters may be paid House Rent Allowance after

completion of their training period and placement in the regular grade subject to the condition that better type

quarters are not available for allotment to the concerned employee, and the Estate Department certifies to this

effect. The said provision is not applicable to Dinesh Sharma since he is not a new employee. In as much as the

employees who are already availing HRA facility, the Estate Department has been advised to write letters to the

concerned employees advising them to apply for quarters and in event of allotment of the same the HRA facility

would be withdrawn. In the instant case, the workman has surrendered his KS type quarters. Management has not

been able to produce any document to indicate that the Estate Department had communicated such provision of

internal guideline to the workman or offered any better quarters to him. The workman is still in the service of the

company and raised the dispute in the year 2017. According to the guidelines of the company, employees

surrendering their quarters within a period of one year prior to the scheduled date of superannuation

will not be entitled to receive House Rent Allowance. The corollary deduced from this is that a person who

surrendered his quarters long before his superannuation or more than one year before his superannuation is entitled

to House Rent Allowance. Under the facts and circumstances, I hold that the aggrieved workman Dinesh Sharma is

entitled to receive House Rent Allowance from 04.09.2013 till date according to the prevailing rates applicable.

For the purpose of receiving House Rent Allowance, the workman is required to submit his application in the

standard format which has to be provided to him by the Estate Department.

Hence,

ORDERED

The Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest in favour of the workman. Management of SAIL-ISP,

Burnpur is directed to pay House Rent Allowance to Dinesh Sharma w.e.f. 04.09.2013 till date, on the basis of

applicable rates from time to time. The management shall pay current and arrear House Rent Allowance to the

concerned workman within two months from the date of communication of order on receiving his application in

standard/prescribed format which shall be submitted within a fortnight from the Award. Let an Award be drawn up

on the basis 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, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1505.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार हहदुस्ट्तान ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री बजलराम जामाजी खंडारे के

बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.-140/2000) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-30012/17/1998-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1505.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 140/2000) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Shri Baliram Jamaji Khandare which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-30012/17/1998-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/140/2000

Date: 25.07.2025.

Party No.1:

The G. M. (IR) Petroleum House,

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5799

West Zone, R & C Building House,

MUMBAI, 400008.

Hindustan Petroleun Corporation Ltd.,

Sr. Depot Superintendent,

At Village Gaigaon, Tah. Akola

Akola (MS)

The Sr. Regional Manager, Regional Office,

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Post Box No. 8 2nd Floor, Oriental Building,

Nagpur, 440001.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri Baliram Jamaji Khandare

R/o Mazod Tq Patur Akola (MS),

(Dated: 25th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of HPCL and their workman Shri. Baliram Jamaji

Khandare for adjudication, as per letter No. L-30012/17/98 (IR(M) dated 20.04.1999, with the following

schedule: -

―Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its

General Manager West Zone, R & C Building, Byculla, Mumbai, Sr. Depot Superintendent, Akola and Sr.

Regional Manager, Regional Office, Nagpur, in dismissing the service of Shri Baliram Jamaji Khandare,

R/o. Mazod, Akola, w.e.f. 16.06.1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?‖

2.

Case is called out. Learned counsel for the respondent is present before the court. None appeared on

behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 21.02.2020.

From perusal of record, it is apparent that statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the

parties respectively. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court

since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not

proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its General

Manager West Zone, R & C Building, Byculla, Mumbai, Sr. Depot Superintendent, Akola and Sr. Regional

Manager, Regional Office, Nagpur, in dismissing the service of Shri Baliram Jamaji Khandare, R/o. Mazod,

Akola, w.e.f. 16.06.1996 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1506.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससड न्यू आंजडया एश्योरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राजेि सुरेंर जबनकर के

बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.-13/2019-20) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-17012/44/2007-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1506.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2019-20) of the Central Government Industrial

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

5800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in relation to M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Shri Rajesh Surendra Binkar which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-17012/44/2007-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/13/2019-20

Date: 03.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Branch Manager,

M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Raj Kamal Building, 2nd Floor,

Panchsheel Chowk, Wardha Road,

Nagpur (Maharashtra).

2. The Regional Manager,

M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Regional Office, MECL Building Ambedkar Bhawan,

4th Floor, T.V. Tower Square, Nagpur.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Rajesh Surendra Binkar,

R.o Plot No. 21, Vasant Nagar,

Rangubai Layout, Post-Bhagwan Nagar,

Nagpur (Maharashtra)-27.

AWARD

(Dated: 03rd Jully, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur, and

their workman Shri. Rajesh Surendra Binkar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-17012/44/2007-(IR(M) dated

21.05.2019, with the following schedule:-

―Does there exist employee-employer relation between Shri Rajesh Surendra Binkar and New India

Assurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur under ID Act, 1947?

If yes, whether the termination of the services of Shri Rajesh Surendra Binkar w.e.f. 20.11.2006 by

the management of M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur is legal, just and proper? If not, to what

relief Shri Rajesh Surendra Binkar is entitled to and from which date? What other directions, if any, are

necessary in the matter?‖

2.

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

22.11.2021. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No

other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long

back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it

is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The termination of the services of Shri Rajesh Surendra Binkar w.e.f. 20.11.2006 by the

management of M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur is legal, just and proper. The workman is not

entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1507.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससड मैंगनीज ओर आंजडया जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री. हररहर मजलक,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5801

ऄध्यक्ष/महासजचव, राष्ट्रीय मजदूर मंच के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-02/2021-22) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज

जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-27011/1/2021-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1507.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 02/2021-22) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to M/s Manganese Ore India Ltd. and Shri. Harihar Malik, President/General Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Manch which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-27011/1/2021-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/02/2021-22

Date: 02.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Mines Manager,

M/s Manganese Ore India Ltd.

Ukwa Mine, PO- Ukwa, The Paraswada,

District-Balaghat(MP)-481105.

2. The Mines Manager,

M/s Manganese Ore India Ltd.,

Tirodi Mine, PO & The-Tirodi,

District-Balaghat(MP)-481449.

3. The Mines Manager,

M/s Manganese Ore. India Ltd.,

Sitapatore Mine, PO-Sukali, The Tirodi,

District-Balaghat(MP)-481449.

4. The Mines Manager,

M/s Manganese Ore India Ltd.,

Bharveli Mine, PO-Bharveli,

The Balaghat(MP)-481102.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri. Harihar Malik, President/General

Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Manch,

Tumsar (BMS), N.No.-537, Shree Ram Nagar,

Durga Colony, Tumsar,

District-Bhandara(MH)-441912.

AWARD

(Dated: 02th Jully, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of M/s MOIL Limited., and their Union/Rastriya

Mazdoor, Tumsar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-27011/1/2021 (IR(M) dated 12.03.2020, with the

following schedule:-

5802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether the demand as raised by union Rashtriya Mazdoor, Tumsar, (BMS), District Bhandara

(Maharashtra) against the Management of MOIL, Nagpur for having a separate fresh Standing

Order certified by the RLC(C), Jabalpur for 04 mines of MOIL situated in Madhya Pradesh i.e.

Bharveli Mines, Tirodi Mines, Sitapatore Mines and Ukwa Mines, is legal & justified? If so, what

other directions are necessary in this regard?‖

2.

Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent/management Shri. Harshal Ghumde is present

before the Court but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner.

From perusal of record, it is apparent that notice has been served to the petitioner on 17.05.2021. But

despite service of notices, petitioner is not coming to the Court since 23.07.2021. No statement of claim has been

filed by the petitioner till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is

not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim

of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The demand as raised by union Rashtriya Mazdoor, Tumsar, (BMS), District Bhandara

(Maharashtra) against the Management of MOIL, Nagpur for having a separate fresh Standing Order

certified by the RLC(C), Jabalpur for 04 mines of MOIL situated in Madhya Pradesh i.e. Bharveli Mines,

Tirodi Mines, Sitapatore Mines and Ukwa Mines, is illegal & unjustified. The Union is not entitled to any

relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1508.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससड एसीसी जलजमटेड; मेससड कुमार राम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ऄिोक कम्ृेल्ली के बीच

ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-42/2015-

16) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-29012/44/2015-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1508.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 42/2015-16) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to M/s ACC Ltd; M/s. Kumar Ram and Shri Ashok Kampelli which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-29012/44/2015-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/42/2015-16

Date: 04.07.2025.

Party No.1

:

The Plant Director,

M/s. ACC Ltd.,,

Post: Cement Nagar,

Chandrapur (MS).

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5803

:

M/s. Kumar Ram,

ACC Contractor, Post Cement Nagar,

Chandrapur (MS)

Versus

Party No.2

:

Shri Ashok Kampelli.

Represented through Shri D.G. Lohakare,

President, Vidarbha General Labour Union,

Nakoda, Cement Nagar

Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 4th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of ACC Ltd. and their workman Sh. Ashok

Kampelli, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-29012/44/2015-IR (M) dated 14.12.2015, with the following

schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s. ACC Ltd.,Chanda Cement Works, Chandrapur in

terminationg the services of Shri Ashok Kampelli worker orally through the Contrator M/s. Kumar Ram

without complying the relevant provision of law and denying to reinstate in service to extend any relief is

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

2.

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

statement, in response to which, the union Vidarbha General Labour Union, (―the union‖ in short) filed the

statement of claim on behalf of the petitioner and the management of M/s. ACC Ltd., (―party no.1‖ in short) filed

the written statement. Workman filed his rejoinder as well as evidence on affidavit. The case is fixed for

examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the workman.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case before this Tribunal, today a joint Pursis is filed by the

parties mentioning that the dispute has been settled amicably and did not want to prosecute further in the matter.

So considering the facts mentioned in the pursis the award is passed.

Both parties have settled the dispute amicably in terms and conditions mentioned in the pursis signed by

both the parties.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

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

Pursis. The Pursis dated 04.07.2025 is made part of the award.‖

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

5804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5805

नइ ददल्ली, 6 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1509.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससड मॉयल जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राम कृृाल खुसेल, ऄध्यक्ष, मॉयल जनिजक्त

मजदूर संघ के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.-28/2021-22) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 06.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-27011/04/2022-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

5806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 6th August, 2025

S.O. 1509.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2021-22) of the Central Government Industrial

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

in relation to M/s MOIL Ltd. and Shri Ram Kripal Khursel, President, MOIL Janshakti Mazdur Sangh which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 06.08.2025.

[No. L-27011/04/2022-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/28/2021-22

Date: 10.07.2025.

Party No.1:

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

M/s MOIL Ltd.,

MOIL Bhawan,

1 A Katol Road, Nagpur- 440013.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri Ram Kripal Khursel , President,

MOIL Janshakti Mazdur Sangh, Balaghat (MP),

C/o Smt.Kalpana randive, General Secretary,

MOIL Janshakti Majdur Sangh, MOIL Ltd.,

MOIL Bhawan,

1 A Katol Road, Nagpur – 440013.

AWARD

(Dated: 10 July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of MOIL, and their union MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor

Sangh for adjudication, as per letter No. L-27011/04/2022 (IR(M) dated 22.02.2022, with the following

schedule:-

―Whether the demand of the MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh against the management of Moil

Limited, Nagpur for rectifying the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2013 and non- implementation of the

Recruitment & promotion Rules with Part- II by the management is just fair & legal? If yes, What relief the

workman are entitled to?‖

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent, despite service of notices. No Statement of claim and written

statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. From perusal of record, it is apparent that both

parties are not coming to the court since long back. It appears that they are not interested to contest the case further

more. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The demand of the MOIL Janshakti Mazdoor Sangh against the management of Moil Limited,

Nagpur for rectifying the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2013 and non- implementation of the

Recruitment & promotion Rules with Part- II by the management is unjust unfair & illegal. The workman

is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5807

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1510.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ऑर्मडनेंस फजक्री ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (a08/2020-21) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-अइअर(बी-II)-102]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1510.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.08/2020-21) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Ordinnce Factory their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-102]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/Appln/08/2020-21

Date: 13.06.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The General Manager, Ordinance factory,

Chanda, Tahasil Bhadrawati, Distt. Chandrapur.

2. M/s. MD construction, office at Petrolpump

(thana) Gandhi Ward, Post – J. Nagar,

Distt. Bhandara,441906.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sarika w/o Vijay Meshram, Occ-Contract

Worker, Anand Nagar, Sumthana,

Badrawati, Distt. Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 13th June, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes

(Amendment) Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in

relation to the management of Ordinance Factory & others, and the applicant, Ms. Sarika w/o Vijay Meshram, for

adjudication, vide case no. CGIT/NGP/Appln/08/2020-2021, with the following issues framed:-

―Whether the action of the management/ Ordinance Factory in terminating the workman is legal,

fair and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? ―

2.

Case called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent/management Shri Prashant Khobragade is present

before the Court. None is present on behalf of petitioner. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court

since 29/09/2021. Only today, Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. Prashant Khobragade is present before the

Court

From perusal of record, it is apparent that statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the

parties respectively. But no rejoinder affidavit and other evidence have been filed by the petitioner to prove his

case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case

further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

ORDER

The action of the management/ Ordinance Factory in terminating the workman is legal, fair and

justified. Ms. Sarika w/o Vijay Meshram is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

5808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 9 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1511—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

]चंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (

60/2018) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-23012/144/2018 -अइअर(सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2025

S.O. 1511.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

of Ms. BBMB and their workmen received by the Central Government on 30/07/2025.

[No. L-23012/144/2018-IR (CM-II)

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.60/2018

Registered on:-04.12.2018

1. Jai Devi W/o Late Sh. Krishan Ram @ Krishanu

2. Desh Raj S/o Late Sh. Krishan Ram @ Krishanu

3. Rattani @ Champa Devi D/o Late Sh. Krishan Ram @ Krishanu

All R/o Village Andharara, PO Chowk, Tehsil Baldwara, Distt. Mandi, H.P. (LRs of deceased

applicants Krishan Ram @ Krishanu S/o Sh. Bazira Ram)

….…..Applicants

Versus

1.

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

through its Chairman.

2.

The Chief Engineer, BSL Project/BBMB, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

..…Respondents

Present:

None for applicants.

Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Law Officer for Respondents no.1 & 2.

Award

Passed on:-18.07.2025

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/144/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.11.2018, under clause

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

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

―Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of Smt. Jai Devi &

Others, Wd/o Late Krishanu, for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and considering him in

continuous service upto age of superannuation resulting in entitlement of consequential benefits is legal, just

and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal representatives of late applicants are entitled to and from

which date?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5809

1.

In this case, issues were framed on 04.12.2023 and the case was adjourned on various dates for

filing evidence by way of affidavit of applicants. On the last date of hearing i.e. 01.05.2025, AR for applicants was

directed to file the affidavit of applicants, failing which the claim petition will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Today also neither the applicants nor their AR made appearance. In this way, there is no evidence led by the

applicants till date. The applicants were given sufficient opportunities to file evidence by way of affidavit but in

spite of the opportunity afforded to applicants to file affidavit, the same is not filed till date, which shows that the

applicants are not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

2.

Since the applicants have not filed evidence by way of affidavit to prove their case against the

respondents, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, ‗No

Claim Award‘ is passed in the present reference.

3.

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

Act for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 9 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1512.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

]चंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (

72/2018) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-23012/158/2018 -अइअर(सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2025

S.O. 1512.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

of Ms. BBMB and their workmen received by the Central Government on 30/07/2025

[No. L-23012/158/2018-IR (CM-II)

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-

II, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.72/2018

Registered on:-11.12.2018

4. Gulabi Devi W/o Late Sh. Chaudhary Ram

5. Kamal Kishor S/o Late Sh. Chaudhary Ram

6. Kamal Dev S/o Late Sh. Chaudhary Ram

All R/o Village Andharara, PO Chowk, Tehsil Baldwara, Distt. Mandi, H.P. (LRs of deceased

applicants Chaudhary Ram S/o Bardu Ram)

….…..Applicants

Versus

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

Chairman.

2. The Chief Engineer, BSL Project/BBMB, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

..…Respondents

Present:

None for applicants.

Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Law Officer for Respondents no.1 & 2.

5810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Award

Passed on:-18.07.2025

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/158/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 22.11.2018, under

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

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

―Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demands of Smt. Gulabi Devi

& Others, Wd/o Late Chaudhary for declaring his retrenchment/termination as illegal and

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

consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what relief the legal heirs/legal

representatives of late applicants are entitled to and from which date?

1.

In this case, issues were framed on 04.12.2023 and the case was adjourned on various dates for filing

evidence by way of affidavit of applicants. On the last date of hearing i.e. 01.05.2025, AR for applicants

was directed to file the affidavit of applicants, failing which the claim petition will be dismissed for want

of prosecution. Today also neither the applicants nor their AR made appearance. In this way, there is no

evidence led by the applicants till date. The applicants were given sufficient opportunities to file evidence

by way of affidavit but in spite of the opportunity afforded to applicants to file affidavit, the same is not

filed till date, which shows that the applicants are not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

2.

Since the applicants have not filed evidence by way of affidavit to prove their cause against the

respondents, as such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, ‗No

Claim Award‘ is passed in the present reference.

3.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 9 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1513.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

]चंडीगढ़-II ds iapkV (

77/2018) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-23012/128/2018 -अइअर(सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 9th August, 2025

S.O. 1513.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 77/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

of Ms. BBMB and their workmen received by the Central Government on 30/07/2025.

[No. L-23012/128/2018-IR (CM-II)

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Sh. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.77/2018

Registered on:-11.12.2018

Roop Lal S/o Sh. Kanhayiya Ram R/o Village Dhanalag, PO Balhara, Tehsil Sarkarghat, Mandi, HP

….…..Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5811

Versus

3.

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

through its Chairman.

4.

The Chief Engineer, BSL Project/BBMB, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

..…Respondents

Present:

None for workman.

Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Law Officer for Respondents no.1 & 2.

Award

Passed on:-18.07.2025

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/128/2018-IR(CM-II) Dated 19.11.2018, under clause

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

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

―Whether the action of management of BBMB in not accepting the demand of Sh. Roop Lal

S/o Shri Kanhayiya Ram for deeming/considering him in continuous service upto age of

superannuation resultantly entitled of consequential benefits is legal, just and valid? If not, to what

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

1.

In this case, issues were framed on 04.12.2023 and the case was adjourned on various dates for filing

evidence by way of affidavit of workman. On the last date of hearing i.e. 01.05.2025, AR for workman was

directed to file the affidavit of workman, failing which the claim petition will be dismissed for want of

prosecution. Today also neither the workman nor his AR made appearance. In this way, there is no

evidence led by the workman till date. The workman was given sufficient opportunities to file evidence by

way of affidavit but in spite of the opportunity afforded to the workman to file affidavit, the same is not

filed till date, which shows that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

2.

Since the workman has not filed evidence by way of affidavit to prove his cause against the respondents, as

such, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Claim Award‘. Accordingly, ‗No Claim Award‘ is

passed in the present reference.

3.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1514.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] गुवाहाटी ऄसम ds iapkV

(ृहचान

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3

dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-23013/01/2025 -अइअर(सी.एम-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1514.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 05/2022) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, GUWAHATI,Assam as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the Management of ESIC Model Hospital. and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 30/07/2023.

[No. L-23013/01/2025-IR (CM-I)

SALONI, Dy. Director

5812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

PRESENT:

Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee.

Presiding Officer/Link Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 of 2022.

PARTIES:

Shri Snkar Sarkar, Goreswar, Baksa, Assam, Pin-781366.

……… Workman/Applicant.

-Vrs-

The Management of (1) The Medical Superintendent, ESIC Model Hospital, Beltola, Guwahati-781022 and (2) the

Director, Group-5 Placement and Security Services, 251 Hengerabari Road, Ganeshguri, Guwahati-781006.

…..OP/Management.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workmen/Union

: None

For the Contractor

: None

For the Management.

: Ms. Lipika Deka and

Sri Santanu Chakrabarty learned Advocates.

INDUSTRY

:

ESIC Model Hospital

STATE

:

Assam.

Date of Award

:

13/06/2025.

AWARD

Mr. Santanu Chakrabarty, Learned advocate appeared on behalf of ESIC Model Hospital, Guwahati and

filed Written Statement on behalf of the Management of ESIC hospital, Guwahati executed by Prof Joya Ghosh,

Medical Superintendent of ESIC Model Hospital, Guwahati. Copy of the Written Statement is also filed. Case is

fixed up today for appearance and filing Written Statement by the parties.

On repeated calls at 12 noon none appeared for the aggrieved workman, Mr. Sankar Sarkar. On perusal of

the case record I find that since registration of the case on 27-07-2022 the workman appeared only on 14-03-2023.

Thereafter, the workman did not take any steps on 20-09-2024, 10-01-2025, 05-03-2025, 19-03-2025 and today i.e.

13-06-2025 when the case is fixed up during special campaign for disposal of cases.

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 Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), Guwahati, Ministry of Labour and Employment, referred the scheduled dispute to this

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati by issued Order No. G/R. 8(02)/2022-CGIT dated 04-02-2022 for

adjudication.

SCHEDULE

―Whether the management of ESIC Model Hospital, Guwahati has followed the provisions of section 25F & allied

provisions of the I.D. Act prior to oral termination of services of Shri Sankar Sarkar, Casual/Contract Worker

w.e.f. 01-08-2021 ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

Mr. Santanu Chakrabarty, Learned advocate for the Management of ESIC model hospital, Guwahati has

appeared and filed Written Statement contesting the claim. Notice under registered post were issued to Sri Sankar

Sarkar at his registered address but the same has been returned with the postal report that the address is

insufficient.

On receiving Order No. G/R. 8(02)/2022-CGIT dated 04-02-2022 from the Office of the Deputy Chief

Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati Reference case No. 05 of 2022 was registered on 27-07-2022 and an

order was passed 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 and a list of witnesses.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5813

Considering the materials in the record, it appears that the workman is not inclined to pursue this case. He

has not elaborated his case by filing Written Statement in more than two years. The Industrial Dispute is therefore

disposed of for non-prosecution. Let a no dispute award be drawn up.

Hence,

ORDERED

That the Industrial dispute is dismissed for non-prosecution. Let a No Dispute Award be drawn up. Copies

of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE ,Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1515.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

esa

–

सह

–

] जबलपुर ds iapkV(एलसी/ अर/-85/2014

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/62/2014-अइअर(सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1515.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/85/2014) of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/07/2025.

[No. L-22012/62/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/85/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

Sheikh Kauyum, Ex-Senior Mistri,

Unglai OCM, Sohagpur Area,

SECL, PO : Dhanpuri,

Shahdol

Workman

Vs

Deputy Regional Manager,

Umlai OCM, Sohagpur Area,

SECL, PO: Dhanpuri,

Shahdol

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 04th day of July- 2025)

As per letter dated 07/11/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per

Notification No. L-22012/62/2014(IR(CM-II)) dt. 07/11/2014. The dispute under reference relates to:

5814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―अमऱाई ओ० सी० एम० सोहागऩुर ऺेत्र एसईसीएऱ प्रबंधन द्वारा श्री शेख कयूम, एक्स वरर० ममस्त्त्री को

प्राथममक ररकार्ड में दर्ड र्न्मतिथी को अनदेखा कर ऩश्चािविी बनाये गये सेवाअमिऱेखों में दर्ड मिन्न र्न्मतिथी

के आधार ऩर समय ऩूवड सेवातनवृत्त कर ददया र्ाना क्या न्यायसंगि है यदद नह ं, िो कमडकार क्या अनुिोष ऩाने का

हकदार हैं ?‖

Case of the workman, is mainly that he was appointed with the Management on the post of Motor

Mechanic on 10.02.1975, his date of birth was wrongly mentioned by Management in their records as 01.07.1952

whereas it was 01.10.1953 as show in her mark sheet of Class 5th and State Board of Education. He was issued a

letter of superannuation by Management on the basis of wrong date of birth recorded by Management in their

records. He filed a writ petition No. 1754/2010 before Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur which was heard and

disposed vide order dated 24.02.2010 with a direction to Management to place his case before the Age

Determination Committee for determination of his date of birth and age. This order was not compiled by the

Management hence, the Workman was forced to file a Contempt petition No. 703/2010. During the pendency of the

contempt petition, Management decided its representation vide its order dated 10.05.2010 rejecting his claim and

holding his date of birth recorded in their records as correct. He filed another Writ Petition No. 9004/2011 against

this order of Management dated 10.05.2010 rejecting his representation. In the last pay certificate issued to him by

Management on his transfer from Dhanpuri to Amlai, the date of birth of the applicant, the date of appointment and

the PF No. were incorrectly recorded. After the Workman pointed out this error before Management at Amlai, they

sent a communication to Dhanpuri from where the Workman was transferred to Amlai confirming the date of birth

and date of appointment as well PF No. of the Workman but they did not response to this letter and the Management

passed the order dated 10.05.2010 ignoring his date of birth recorded in his Higher Secondary Certificate. The said

writ petition was disposed by Hon‘ble High Court vide its order dated 28.06.2012 directing the Management to

conduct a fresh inquiry with respect to determination of age of the Workman taking into account the original

documents or relevant documents produced at the time of initial appointment of the Workman. It was further

directed that, if it is found that the date of birth was incorrectly recorded in the service rules, the same would be

corrected and the Workman would be superannuated according to the correct date of birth of the Workman. It was

also directed that this exercise will be completed within 15 days and till the order is communicated to the petitioner

by Management, the petitioner Workman shall be allowed to continue in employment. It is further the case of the

Workman that Management did not comply this order of Hon‘ble High Court and communicated to the Workman

vide their letter dated 23.08.2012 that he is superannuated w.e.f. 30.06.2012 which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary

because it is against the provisions in this respect. The Workman has prayed that, holding the action of Management

in superannuating the Workman on the basis of his date of birth 01.07.1952 against law, he be held entitled to be

reinstated with back wages and benefits in service and post retrial benefits.

Case of Management is mainly that, the Workman was initially appointed w.e.f. 01.04.1976 at the time of

his initial appointment he declared his age as 28 years as on 1980, which was recorded in the Form B register and

they are connected registers/ documents which was never challenged by the Workman. The entries were recorded in

it has been certified by the Workman himself. Now at the fag end, he has challenged his date of birth and

superannuation which is not permissible in law. Management has prayed that, their action is not false in law and the

reference may be answered against the Workman.

In evidence, the Workman has filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He has been cross-examined

on his affidavit by Management. He has further filed and proved photocopy documents, his last pay certificate, letter

of Management dated 10.05.2010 rejecting his representation, copy of order of Hon‘ble High Court in the W.P. No.

9004/2011, letter of Management dated 23.08.2012 sent by Deputy General Manager Sohagpur Area to Deputy

General Manager Amlai, Superannuation order, order of Hon‘ble High Court in Contempt Petition No. 1558/2012,

his original Identity Card, duplicate copy of his Secondary School Marksheet, and Technical Education Mark sheet

which have been proved as Exhibit W-1 to W-10 to be referred as and when required.

Management has filed affidavit of its witness as his examination-in-chief which has been cross-examined

by the Workman side. Management has further filed and proved photocopy Form B (Exhibit M/1 & M/2), Last Pay

Certificate (Exhibit M/3), Copy of Service Books of the Workman (Exhibit M-4) and Copy of Form PS-3 and PS-4

filed as (Exhibit – M/5 & M/6).

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Workman Mr. Shakil Ahmed and for Management Mr.

Neeraj Kewat. I have gone through the record as well.

The undisputed facts are mainly that, the Age Determination Committee determined the age of Workman

under order of the High Court detailed mentioned earlier, it has been referred by Management in its order dated

10.05.2010 and was confirmed by Management in its order passed by it in-compliance of order of Hon‘ble High

Court dated 28.06.2012 passed in W.P. No. 9004/2011 retreating the previous decision taken by the Age

Determination Committee. The issue which arises therefore is as follows:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5815

Whether the decision of Management passed by the Report of Age Determination Committee in holding

the date of birth of the Workman as 01.101953 is correct in law.

The Implementation Instructions-37(I.I.37) prepared in the light of NCWA-II provides procedure for

determination/verification of age of its employees. A(i & ii) of the I.I.-37 is relevant in this respect and it is being

reproduced as follows:

A) Determination of the age at the time of first appointment:

i)

Matriculates : In the case of Appointees, who have been passed Matriculation or Qualification

Examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of

birth and the same will not be altered in any circumstances.

ii)

Non-Matriculates but educated : In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a

recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate

shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered at any circumstances.

It is the case of the Workman that, he did file the duplicate certificate of his Secondary School

Examination which he passed in 1971 and is conducted by Education Board. His date of birth was recorded as

01.10.1953. The report of the Age Determination Committee,which is the basis of the order dated 10.05.2010 has

also been filed by the Management, which is Exhibit M-7. Perusal of this report goes to show that Workman did file

duplicate copy of Pramanpatra of Sambhagiya Purv Madhyamik Pareeksha,1971 and duplicate copy of Provisional

Central Vocational Certificate of 1973 in which his date of birth was recorded as 01.10.1953. He also filed his

Identity card issued by Western Division of Coal Mines Authority Sohagpur Area, indicating his date of birth as

01.10.1953. His last pay certificate issued by Dhanpuri Area indicates his date of birth as 28 years as on 1980. The

age determination committee relied upon the Form-B register of Amlai area, Service Register of the Workman,

Form PS 3 and 4, Form B Register of Dhanpuri Area where his date of birth has been indicated as 28 years on 1980.

The age determination committee records further that, there is no prove that the State Educational Certificate in the

Trade of Motor Mechanic indicating his date of birth of the Workman as 01.10.1953 was filed by the Workman at

the time of his appointment, also that the Identity Card issued by Sohagpur Area indicating his date of Birth as

01.10.1953 could be manipulated and hence held the claim of the workman not proved and since his date of birth is

recorded as 01.07.1952 in Registers of Management and also the Workman refused to undergo radiological test

therefore his date of Birth is 01.10.1953 cannot be accepted. Based on the finding of this Report of Age

Determination Committee, the order of Management dated 10.05.2010 was passed and the second order in

compliance of the second Writ W.P. No. 2004/2012 simply retreats the previous order.

It is not disputed that the Workman was first appointed as Motor Mechanic on 10.02.1975 or even if the

case of the Management be taken in this respect, then on 01.04.1976.

The minimum required qualification for the Post of Motor Mechanic is that the Applicant must be

having Vocational Certificate recognized by any institutions, with respect to Motor Mechanic Trade. Without this

the Workman cannot be appointed as Motor Mechanic.

Naturally, he would have been selected for appointment as a Motor Mechanic after the Management

satisfied with him that he has cleared the Vocational Certificate with respect to the trade. The Vocational Certificate

of the Workman filed on record proved and shows that he cleared this examination in 1973 that is before he was

appointed by Management. The Sambhagiya Purv Madhyamik Pareeksha was also cleared by him in 1971 i.e.

before his appointment in 1975/1976.

Case of the Management with respect to grounds for rejecting the representation of the Workman on the

basis of report of Age Determination Committee is that According to Age Determination Committee, there was no

proof that these documents were submitted by the Workman at the time of his appointment. Since, the post on which

the Workman was first appointed required certain Vocational Qualifications for appointment which the Workman

possessed undisputedly, it cannot be imagined that he did not produce any Certificate with respect to his Vocational

Qualification i.e. the first requirement for his selection to the post. In the light of this discussion, it can be held that

the Age Determination Committee committed error in law in not relying on provision in I.I.-37 with respect to

determining the age of the Workman by not placing reliance on his Vocational and Purva Madhyamik Academic

Certificates which were to be first relied upon. Consequently, the action of Management, in rejecting the

Representation of the Workman on the basis of report of Age Determination Committee and Superannuating the

Workman on the basis of his date of birth recorded as 01.07.1952 in his service records mainly by Management is

held unjust, illegal and arbitrary.

Issue is answered accordingly.

5816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

AWARD

Holding the action of Management of Amlai OCM Sohagpur Area, SECL in superannuating the

Workman Sheikh Kayyum, Senior Mechanic on the basis of his date of birth dated 01.07.1952 as illegal,

unjust and arbitrary, the Workman is held entitled to be deemed in service till the date of superannuation

based on his date of birth 01.10.1953 with all back-wages and pre as well post-retrial benefits.

The Workman is also held entitled to litigation cost Rs. 25,000/- from Management in view of the

checkered litigation in the case in hand.

Management is directed to settle the entire dues of the Workman within 60 days from the date of

publication of Award in the Gazette, failing which interest @8 per annum from the date of publication of

Award till payment.

DATE:- 04/07/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1516.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

esa

–

सह

–

] जबलृुर dsiapkV(एलसी/ अर/-73/2011

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/85/2011-अइअर(सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1516.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/73/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/07/2025.

[No. L-22012/85/2011 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/2011

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

1. The President,

Maikal Minerals & Metal Workers Congress,

Store Complex, Amrandandi, Amlai,

Distt. : Shahdol (M.P.)

Shahdol.

2. Shri Keshavram S/o Shyamlal,

Qtr. No. M/71, Bangwar Colony,

PO: Bemhouri, Distt. Shahdol (M.P.)

Shahdol

Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5817

Vs

1. The CGM,

Sohagpur Area of SECL,

PO: Dhanpuri, Distt. Shahdol (M.P.)

Shahdol

2. The Sub-Area Manager,

Amlai-Bangwar Sub-Area,

PO:Bemhouri, Distt. Shahdol (M.P.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 08th day of July- 2025)

As per letter dated 14/07/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per

Notification No. L-22012/85/2011(IR(CM-II)) dt. 14/07/2011. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the action of the management of the Sohagpur Area of SECL not making necessary

corrections in the Date of Birth of Shri Keshavram S/o Shyamlal in his service records and forcibly

retiring him on the basis of wrong entry of date of birth is legal and justified? To what relief the

claimant is entitled for and from which date?‖

Notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and

defense.

Case of the Workman is mainly that, he was appointed on 29.06.1990 as a loader on compassionate

ground, he had produced proof of his age at the time of his initial appointment which was his Middle Class

Certificate containing his date of birth as 10.01.1957. The Management arbitrarily recorded his date of birth as 32

years in 1981 meaning thereby his age at the time of appointment to be treated as 41 years and 11 months.

On coming to know about this anomaly, he made representation before Management and requested to

correct his date of birth. The Management rejected the representation vide its order dated 10.06.1990. He then

preferred a Writ Petition No. 4585/2007 which was disposed by Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur with a

direction to avail the remedy in Industrial Law.

According to the Workman, he was superannuated on the basis of his wrong date of birth which is

unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He raised a dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner which could not be

conciliated hence this reference. The Workman has prayed that holding his superannuation on the basis of his

wrong date of birth recorded by Management in its documents, against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated and

to be superannuated on the date fixed according to his correct date of birth as mentioned in his School Certificate.

Case of the Management is mainly that, the Workman was appointed on the compassionate basis after

his father was declared medically unfit on 29.06.1990. He had declared himself illiterate at the time of his

appointment. His date of birth was recorded as 01.07.1949 on the statutory records maintained by Management.

On his disclosure, his date of birth was recorded in Form B and other registers like Service Registers, PS 4, PS 3

etc. He made a representation before Management seeking correction of his date of birth on the basis of School

leaving Certificate. It was found that, there was no justification of filing the School Leaving Certificate with such a

delay. He could not substantiate his claim, hence his representation was dismissed. He was superannuated on the

basis of his date of birth recorded in his Service Record. Management has requested that the reference be answered

against the Management.

The Workman has filed his rejoinder in which he has mainly retreated his claim.

In evidence, the Workman has filed and proved his photocopy school certificate, order of Management

dated 10.06.2009 rejecting his representation, he also filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been

cross-examined by the Management.

Management filed affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by

Workman side. The Management has filed and proved Exhibit M-1 the Application of the Workman, M-2 School

Leaving Certificate, M-3 another Application of the Workman, Copy of Form B Register, and Service Book.

None appeared for Workman at the stage of argument. I have heard argument of Learned Counsel

Mr. Neeraj Kewat for Management. I have gone through the record as well.

5818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No written arguments have been filed by any of the parties.

On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments following issued arises for determination

Whether the Management has committed correctly in law in rejecting the representation of the Workman

with respect to the correction of his date of birth?

The Implementation Instructions 76 prepared under National Coal Wage Agreement- II which deal with

the disputes regarding age/ date of birth of the Workman requires to be referred here and which is being referred as

follows.

B) Determination of the age at the time of first appointment:

iii)

Matriculates : In the case of Appointees, who have been passed Matriculation or Qualification

Examination, the date of birth recorded in the said certificate shall be treated as correct date

of birth and the same will not be altered in any circumstances.

iv)

Non-Matriculates but educated : In the case of appointees who have pursued studies in a

recognized educational institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate

shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered at any circumstances.

v)

Ex-Servicemen:

In the case of Ex-servicemen who are not matricula-tes, the date of birth recorded in the Army

Discharge Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered

under any circumstances.

vi)

Illiterates :

In the case of appointees not covered by the fore-going clauses, the date of birth will be

determined by the Colliery Medical Officer keeping in view any documentary or other relevant

evidence as may be produced by the appointee. Date of birth so deter-mined shall be treated as

correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any circumstances

The order of the Management rejecting representation of the Workman, which is o0n record, goes to

show that the Duplicate Marksheet of School Examination, 1970 does not contain the date of its issuing. The

Workman could not explain inordinate delay in seeking correction of his date of birth. And his representation was

dismissed.

It was incumbent on the Workman to proof the date of birth as recorded in is School Certificate which is

un-dated. By way of producing the Register Form where the Certificate was issued and also examining the

Headmaster or Concern person who had issue the copy in absence of this evidences, the Management could not be

said to have acted against law in not relying on the undated certificate. I do not find any illegality in this action of

Management.

Accordingly, holding the action of Management in not correcting the date of birth of the Workman and

superannuating him on the basis of his date of birth recorded in his service documents just and proper, the issue

stands answered accordingly.

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

AWARD

Holding the Management in not correcting the date of birth of the Workman and superannuating

him on the basis of his date of birth recorded in his service documents is just and proper. He is entitled to no

relief.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 08/07/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1517.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

–

सह

–

] जबलृुर dsiapkV(एलसी/ अर/-71/2011

) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/79/2011-अइअर(सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5819

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1517.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/71/2011) of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of S.E.C.L, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/07/2025.

[No. L-22012/79/2011 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/2011

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..( Retd)

Bhukhu S/o. Amar Sai

Village – Harri, Post – Semra

District – Anuppur (M.P.)

Workman

Versus

1. The CGM

Jamuna Kotma Area of SECL

PO: Jamuna, Distt.- Anuppur(M.P.)

2. Sub-Area Manager

Amadand Sub-Area of SECL

Post – Amadand, Distt.-Anuppur

(M.P.)-484444

Management

AWARD

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

As per letter dated 11/07/2011 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per reference number L-22012/79/2011/IR(CM-II) dt.

11/07/2011. The dispute under reference related to :-

―Whether the action of the management of Jamuna Kotma Area of SECL in terminating the services of

Shri Bhukhu S/o. Amarsai, Ex-General Mazdoor, Amadand Sub-Area of SECL, is legal and justified ?

To what relief the applicant workman is entitled to ?‖

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

their respective statements of claims and defense.

The case of the workman, as taken by him in his statement of claim is mainly that he had been working as

a General Mazdoor with the management, he became ill and could not attend his duties due to his illness. He also

requested for constitution of medical board by the management but the management refused his requests and

terminated his services vide its order dated 22.05.2003 on the allegation of misconduct committed by him by way of

unauthorizedly and habitually absenting from duty without intimation to management and without getting leave

sanctioned, which is misconduct under Clause 26.24 and 26.30 of the Certified Standing Orders. According to the

workman there was no proper inquiry conducted by management. His defense was not considered. Finding

regarding proof of the charge of misconduct recorded by Inquiry Officer in his report is perverse and the punishment

is also excessive.

Management has taken a case in its written statement of defense that the workman was appointed as a

General Mazdoor, Category-I. He was in the habit of absenting himself from workplace. His attendance for the

period between 1990 to 2002 are 0 days in 1990 & 1991 and 1997, 191 days in 1992, 141 days in 1993, 106 days in

5820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1994, 68 days 1995, 60 days in 1996, 84 days in 1998, 44 days in 1999, 107 days in 2000, 47 days in 2001 and

59 days in 2002. He remained absent from 26.02.2003 without information, permission or getting leave sanctioned,

he was issued a charge-sheet dated 22.05.2003, in this respect. After his reply to the charge-sheet was found not

satisfactory, management decided to conduct regular departmental inquiry vide its order dated 22.05.2003. The

workman did participate during the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding the workman guilty of

misconduct and after finding the reply of the workman on the show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary

Authority on the inquiry report, the order of punishment of termination of services of the workman was passed vide

order dated 02.09.2003.

Following preliminary issue was framed by my learned Predecessor and was decided by him vide his order

dated 02.03.2017 holding the departmental inquiry vitiated in law. This order is part of this award.

The management was granted opportunity to prove the charge before this Tribunal.

The management examined its witnesses R.R.R. Lakhra and Mukesh Kumar Sahu who filed their

examination in chief in form of affidavits and were cross examined by the workman. The management further

proved the service file, appointment order, particulars regarding attendance of the workman from 1992 to 2002.

They also proved the charge-sheet against the workman, his reply, copy of Form-C & G, copy of leave register and

attendance register.

The workman also filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He was cross examined by management.

I have heard argument of learned Counsel for management

Mr. Neeraj Kewat and learned Counsel for workman Mr. O.P. Tiwari. Workman side files written arguments, which

have been taken on record. I have gone through the records as well.

As regards, to the issue whether the management has successfully proved the charges against the workman,

the settled proposition of law with respect to proof of charges in a departmental proceedings is that the charges need

not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as it is required in criminal trials.

The charges have already been detailed earlier. Management witness R.R.R. Lakhra has filed and proved

the extract of presence of the workman also the month wise attendance of the employees, including the workman

prepared by management the attendance register and leave register relating to the workman which corroborates the

charge. There is nothing in his cross examination to disbelieve him. His statement further corroborated by the

statement of Mahesh Sahu another witness from management.

On the other hand, the workman admits in his statement that he was absent from workplace. The burden

lies on him to show that his absence was not willful there is nothing in any evidence produced from his side. Hence,

the charge of misconduct alleged is held proved against the workman.

The charge proved against the workman is of his habitual absence right from 1992 to 2002. Details of this

absence has been mentioned earlier. This charge attracts major punishment including punishment of dismissal from

service. Keeping in view the facts of the case in hand and charges proved as well the duration of absence in every

year, the punishment of dismissal of the workman from service, awarded by management is held not excessive to the

charge proved.

In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the workman

and is answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE: 27/06/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1518.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

fookn esa

–

सह

–

] जबलृुर

ds iapkV

(एलसी/ अर सी/-11/2021

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

dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2025-अइअर(सी.एम-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5821

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1518.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/RC/11/2021) of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Central Hospital, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/07/2025.

[No. L-22013/01/2025 – IR (CM-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/RC/11/2021

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.( Retd.)

Vishal Yadav

S/o. Shri Jagannath Prasad Yadav

R/o. Near Gopal Mandir, Subedar Ward

Sagar, District – Sagar M.P.

Workman

Versus

1. Union of India

Ministry of Labour & Employment

Through its Cess Commissioner,

Labour Welfare Organization

M.P. Regiona, 797, Shanti Kunj,

South Civil Lines, Jabalpur M.P.-482001

2. Central Hospital

Through its Medical Officer

Baghraj Ward, Tili, Sagar

District – Sagar M.P.-470002

3. Akal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Contractor)

Through its Manager

E-6, 11 No. Bus Stop, Near Rice Boule

Restaurant, Bhopal M.P.-462016

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 17th day of June-2025.)

The workman has filed petition u/s. 10(2A)(2&3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as amended by

Amendment Act 2010 (in short the ‗Act‘) against termination of services by the management department.

The case of the workman is that he was employed by the establishment of respondent no.-2 initially on the

post of Computer Operator w.e.f. 2008. His appointment was shown by respondent no.-2 through outsourcing M/s.

Victor Guards Pvt. Ltd., the outsourcing agency. His salary and benefits were paid through the outsourcing agency.

He worked continuously with respondent no.-2 till February 2021 only the names of outsourcing agencies was

changed though he was never engaged by the outsourcing agencies rather was directly employed by the respondent

no.-2. His services were terminated by respondent no.-2 by an oral order dated 28.02.2021 informing that his

services were not required, without any notice or compensation which is against Section 25-F, 25-G, 25-H & 25-N

of the Act.

5822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

According to the workman, persons who were appointed after him have in continued in service one of

them is Ratnesh who is still working as Computer Operator in place of the applicant workman which is violation of

Section 25-H & 25-G of the Act. The workman has come to know that the contract of manpower supply was granted

to another outsourcing company Happy Square Outsourcing Services for the period 15.04.2021 to 14.04.2022 and it

is because of this, he has been disengaged. This action of management is unjust, arbitrary and illegal. He raised a

dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur within three years from the date of

termination of his services, which could not be conciliated within 45 days hence this petition. The workman thus has

prayed that holding termination of his services is illegal, the respondent be directed to reinstate the workman.

Notices were sent to the respondents and were sufficiently served. None appeared and no written statement

of defense was filed. The case proceeded ex-parte against the respondent vide order dated 29.07.2024.

In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit as examination in chief. He also filed and proved the

certificate issued by Welfare Administrator, two certificates dated 26.09.2011 and 04.04.2012, issued by the

Medical Officer In charge of respondent no.-2, work distribution order dated 02.06.2016, certificate dated

27.06.2016 issued by Welfare Administrator, letter sent by the Medical Officer to the Welfare and Cess

Commissioner and office memorandum dated 01.06.2021 which are Exb. W/1 to W/7.

I have heard argument of learned Counsel for workman Mr. Aditya Ahiwasi. None appeared from the

management. I have gone through the record as well.

It has been submitted from the side of workman that he has successfully proved his engagement for about

13 years as Computer Operator. The work of Computer Operator is still be taken by respondent no.-2 by another

person after the disengagement of applicant workman. This goes to show that the work is a permanent and perennial

nature. Engaging contract labour for a work of perennial nature is prohibited under Section 5 of the Contract Labour

Regulation and Abolition Act. This is unfair labour practice on the part of employer as defined u/s. 2(ra) of the Act

and mentioned in the 5th Schedule to the Act and is prohibited u/s. 25-T & 25-U of the Act. Hence, it is in the

interest of justice that the workman be granted relief of his reinstatement on the post he was working at the time of

his disengagement.

Learned Counsel has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeetu Bhai Khansang

Ji Jadeja Vs. Kachch District Panchayat, Civil Appeal No. 6890 of 2022. In the referred case the workman was

working with the management as a watchman, since 1992 till 30.12.2002, when his services were terminated for no

cause without any notice and without following procedure prescribed under the Act. Hon‘ble the Apex Court

referred to its three Judge Bench Judgment in the case of Hindustan Tin Works vs. Employees of M/s. Hindustan

Tin Works, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 80, Deepali Gundu Survasey vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya

and others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, reported in (2014)

7 SCC 177 and directed the workman to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.

Learned Counsel has further referred to another judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Pyare

Jan vs. Karnatka State Electricity Board,, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 422, in this case also considering the age and

tenure of engagement, the workman was ordered to be reinstated.

In another case of Tapas Kumar Pal vs. BSNL & others, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 313, it has been held

by Hon‘ble Supreme Court that award of reinstatement can be substituted by awarding compensation only on certain

justifiable grounds.

From perusal of evidence in form of affidavit which is uncontroverted, and documents as mentioned above

the fact that the workman has worked with the respondent no.-2 since June 2008 till date of his disengagement on

28.02.2021 as Computer Operator is proved. The case of the workman is that he was shown to be an outsourced

employee is in fact just to deprive him of his legally admissible claims with regard to permanent status and

regularization.

Section 2(ra) of the Act and Clause 10 of the 5the Schedule of the Act as well Section 25-T & 25-U of the

Act are being reproduced as follows :-

Section 2(ra) - ―unfair labour practice‖ means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;

5th Schedule UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES

On the part of employers and trade unions of employers -

Clause 10 - To employ workmen as ―badlis‖, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with

the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.

Section 25-T -

Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered

under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5823

Section 25-U-

Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.—Any person who commits any unfair labour practice

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend

to one thousand rupees or with both.

In its recent judgment, in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826,

Hon‘ble the Supreme Court has propounded following principles, being reproduced as follows :-

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

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

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

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

undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and

justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector

entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig

economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ………

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

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

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

owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of ―Temporary‖ Labels:- Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral

to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their roles

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

that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination:- Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as

seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state

of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

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

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

systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally

significant.

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

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

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

employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:- Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits

such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This

lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,

retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.‖

The principle laid down in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has been followed by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the

case of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024 (2025 INSC 144). The relevant

portion of the said judgment is being reproduced as follows:-

―12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant

Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer‘s municipal functions specifically the upkeep of

parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or

project-based. Reliance on a general ―ban on fresh recruitment‖ cannot be used to deny labor protections to long

serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam

reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. By requiring the same tasks

(planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still

compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an

unfair labour practice. The principle of ―equal pay for equal work,‖ repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot

be casually disregarded when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent

employees. Long-standing assignments under the Employer‘s direct supervision belie any notion that these were

mere short-term casual engagements.

……………………………………………………….

14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or

temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such

5824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are

―illegal‖ and those that are ―irregular,‖ the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions.

More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years

without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor

based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh

recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years,

sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer‘s

failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established

labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in

circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing

municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the

absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader

critique of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v.

Union of India

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer‘s inability to justify these abrupt terminations.

Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay.

Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet

still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual

regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the

degree of statutory violation evident on record.

17. In light of these considerations, the Employer‘s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in

violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without

adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in

essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of

municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the

Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump

the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period.

18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-

wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following

directions:-

I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen‘s services, effected without compliance with Section

6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications

terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in

service from theof their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.

II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts

akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire

period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of

service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.

III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages

from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the

aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.

IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the

Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have

performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall

not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the

Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned

vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary

administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary

to statutory and equitable norms.‖

From the above discussion, the facts that the workman has been working at the site of the department under

the instruction of the department for almost about 13 years is established, which shows that the work is of permanent

and perennial nature, hence is prohibited u/s. 10 of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act 1970. This is also

established that there has been and there is a vacancy for the post because the case of the workman, is

uncontroverted on the point that this job is taken by someone other. This is also established that by employing a

person as contract labour for the period of 13 year and more, the management has committed unfair labour practice

just with the sole purpose the deprive an employee of his legally admissible benefits with regards to pay and

permanency of tenure as well regularization, which is disapproved by law.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5825

In light of the proved facts above mentioned, the petition is disposed by following award :-

AWARD

The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workman in his post (or posts akin to the duties

they previously performed) within eight weeks from the date of publication of this Award in official Gazette nt.

Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for

continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, except back

wages..

The Respondent Employer shall initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant

Workman within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that he has performed

perennial w duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose

educational or procedural criteria retrospectively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant

Workman or to similarly situated regular employees in the past.

DATE: 17/06/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1519.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (13/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2025-अइअर(बी-II)-27]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1519.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank

and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2025- IR (B-II)-27]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 1st day of July, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 13/2025

Between:

The General Secretary,

Indian Bank Employees Union(AP & TS),

Banjarasadan, Street No. 15, Himayatnagar,

Hyderabad-500029.

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

Indian Bank, Corporate Office,

254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Roypettah, Chennai-600014.

….. Respondent

5826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/1/2025-B1 dated 20.01.2025 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s Naval Armament Depot, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management in denying payment of Special Pay- Daftary Allowance, which

has bearing on retirement benefits, to Sri Matta Anjaiah SR No. 28968 from Feb. 2016 to April, 2022 is

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

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 13/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice

and sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence,In absence of claim statement

‗no-claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 1st day of

July, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 7 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1520.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj कोिी क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (10/2003) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/36/2002-अइअर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2025

S.O. 1520.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 10/2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No.1 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/36/2002- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5827

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

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

Reference Case No. 10/2003

Employer in relation to the management of Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, H.O.,Purnea.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri R.R. Prasad, Ld. Advocate.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Bank

Dated 14/07/2025

AWARD.

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

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

No.L-12011/36/2002-(IR(B-I)) dated 24/31.12.2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Purnea and their workman through General Secretary,

Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Organisation, Purnea for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the claim of the Kosi Kshetriya Gramin Bank State Organisation for payment of overtime

for working on 1.4.2001 being Sunday and for advance Computer increment as given in the

nationalized banks to include in the Salary for computation of House rent allowance is justified? If

so, what relief they are entitled to?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-12011/36/2002-(IR(B-I)) dated 24/31.12.2002 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 10 of 2003 was registered on 21.01.2003 and

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

with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. After issuance of regd. notice, none appeared on behalf of the workman. It further transpires in the case record,

when the case record was put up after a long gap, registered notices were sent on 16.08.2021 and thereafter no step

was taken from the side of the workman. Whereas Sri R.R. prasad, Ld. Advocate appeared from the side of the

management from 27.12.2021 to 12.09.2022 and thereafter failed to appear before this Tribunal but the workman

never appeared before the Tribunal since 21.01.2003, though on 20.06.2025, Sri R.R. Prasad, Ld. Advocate

appeared for the management.

4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpires that the workman never appeared before this Tribunal for a

period of 22 years which shows that the workman has lost his interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of

justice, this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5. Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1521.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार सजचव, केंरीय माध्यजमक जिक्षा बोडड; ककग जसक्योररटी गाड्सड सर्मवसेज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और श्री मातबर हसह के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II

नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड सं्‍या-138/2022) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/178-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

5828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1521.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 138/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education; King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd.,

and Sh. Matbar Singh, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/178-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 138/2022

Sh. Matbar Singh, S/o Sh. Kanwar Singh,

Through- Samajwadi Karamchari Union,

D-212, Gali No. 10, Jagatpuri, Mandoli Road,

Delhi-110093.

Versus

1.

The Secretary,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

Shiksha Kendra, # 2-Community Centre,

Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.

2.

King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd.,

39-A/102, Mohammadpur Village, Near Ram Mandir,

New Delhi-110066.

Appearance:-

For Claimant: Sh. Ajay Tyagi, Ld. AR along with claimant.

For Management: Ms. Vilaksha Daima, Ld. AR for the management-1.

Sh. Kripal Singh, Ld. AR for management-2.

AWARD

16.07.2025

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

the claimant for his illegal termination.

Counsel of the workman submits that workman do not want to proceed with the present claim. Workman‘s

statement is recorded separately.

In view of the above submission made by the AR of the claimant, claimant‘s claim stands dismissed as

withdrawn. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification

under section 17 of the I.D. Act. Record of this file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer.

Date: 16.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1522.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार ईृ. ऄध्यक्ष, डीडीए; गायत्री वेबटेक प्रा. जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती प्रेम के बीच

ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड

सं्‍या- 14/2021) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/176-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5829

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1522.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Dy. Chairman, DDA; Gayatri Webtech Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Prem, which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/176-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 14/2021

Smt. Prem, W/o Sh. Ranjeet,

R/o House No. H-114, JJ Colony, Wazirpur,

Delhi-110052.

VERSUS

1. The Dy. Chairman, DDA,

DDA Head Qrts, 4- Mahatma Gandhi Marg,

I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.

2. Gayatri Webtech Pvt. Ltd.,

SF-02, One Mart Mall, Sector-6,

Vashundhra, Vaishali, Ghaziabad-201019.

AWARD

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

claimant stating that she was working with the management-1 through M-2 who is a contractor since 01.04.2014 as

a Sweeper and her last drawn salary was Rs. 8,000/- per month. Management no. 2 had deployed the workman at

the premises of the management no. 1 situated at Major Dhyan Chand Sports Complex, F-140, Block-F, JJ Colony,

Wazirpur, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052. She did her work well and has not given any chance of making any

complaint to the management nor was she charged while she was in service. Management did not provide any legal

facility i.e. appointment letter, attendance register, leave book, wages slip, bonus, ESI, P.F., minimum wages etc.

Management used to take work from her in overtime but she was not paid overtime wages. When the workman

demanded for said legal benefits, management had terminated her services illegally on 11.12.2018. Thereafter,

workman filed a case before conciliation officer, on 15.04.2019, management no. 2 appeared and compromise that

he would reinstate the workman. She was taken back on duty. After taking back on job, she again demanded for the

legal facilities which annoyed the managements. In vengeance of the demands raised by the workman, without

giving any reason and prior notice to her, she was terminated by the management on 01.08.2019 which is illegal.

Thereafter, she kept on regularly visiting the management‘s establishments and requested the managements to take

her back on duty and to permit her duty and pay her due wages, but, the managements were adamant not to take her

back on duty. She had also sent a demand letter dated 20.08.2019 to the managements through the labour union by

speed post which had been served to the managements, however, despite service of the demand letter, managements

had not paid any heed to the same. She had gone to the conciliation, but it was resulted into failure. Hence, she filed

the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages.

2. M-1 has filed its WS denying the averment made in the claim statement of the claimant. He also submitted that

claim of the claimant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as he was never employed of M-1, he was the

employee of M-2.

3. M-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.11.2021.

4. Examination in chief of the workman has been recorded. Thereafter, neither the workman nor her AR has been

appearing since long to substantiate her claim, inspite of providing a number of opportunities.

7. In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in perusing her case, this tribunal has no option but to

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

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

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 07.07.2025

5830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1523.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार डाकृाल; मु्‍य डाकृाल (सीृीएमजी), ददल्ली मंडल; संचार मंत्रालय, दूरसंचार जवभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और श्री रोिन लाल के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II

नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड सं्‍या- 179/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/177-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1523.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 179/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Post Master; The Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Delhi Circle; Ministry of

Communication, Department of Telecommunication and Sh. Roshan Lal, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/177-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-

II, NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 179/2019

Sh. Roshan Lal, S/o SH. Nanhkau,

R/o House No. 4256, Gali Verma Wali, Pahari Dheeraj,

Sadar Bazaar, Delhi-110006.

Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union,

Off-170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110019.

VERSUS

1.

The Post Master,

67-D, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase-II, New Delhi-110064.

2.

The Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Delhi Circle,

Meghdoot Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

3.

Ministry of Communication,

Department of Telecommunication,

Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.

AWARD

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

filed by the claimant stating that he was working with the management since 30.06.2015 as a Postman

and his last drawn salary was Rs. 16,950/- per month. During his service period, he has not given any

chance to the management to make any complaint to him nor was he charged while he was in service.

He was deprived from the facilities available under labour laws and equal work, equal pay etc. His duty

was in D Block, Mayapuri Jung Market, New Delhi-64, Post Office and the post office comes under the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5831

M-2. Management himself kept him and from that time management gave his name to the Contractor i.e.

M/s G A Digital Web World Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: No. 1 Hargobind Enclave, Vikas Marg

Extension, Delhi-110092. Thereafter, management himself started paying salary to him since

01.01.2017 and started showing his name on their records. His services was illegally terminated by the

management on 12.10.2018. He had sent the written demand letter 0n 13.10.2018 through registered

post/speed post. The above said demand letter had been received by the management but management

did not give any reply for the above said demand letter. He had gone to the conciliation, but it was

resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back

wages.

2. Management has filed its WS, denying the averment made in the claim statement of the claimant. He

also submitted that claim of the claimant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

3. After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 20.02.2020, following issues have been framed

i.e.:

(i) Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

(ii) Whether the service of the workman was illegally terminated.

(iii) Whether there exists any employer & employee relationship between the

management and the workman.

(iv) Whether the workman is entitled to relief of reinstatement and other consequential

benefits.

4.

Now, the matter is listed for arguments on the claimant‘s application filed under section

11(3)(b) of the I.D. Act. However, neither the workman nor his AR has been appearing since long,

despite providing a number of opportunities.

5.

In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in perusing his case, this tribunal has

no option but to dismiss his claim. Hence, his claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A

copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act.

File is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 14.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1524.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार राष्ट्रीय भवन जनमाडण जनगम जलजमटेड; एनकेजी आन्िास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री महादेव के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट

(संदभड सं्‍या- 199/2022) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/181-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1524.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 199/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.; NKG Infrastructure Ltd. and Sh. Mahadev,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/181-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

5832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 199/2022

Sh. Mahadev, S/o Late Sh. Ratan,

R/o V.P.O.- Palson, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh-281502.

Through- Delhi Dalit Mazdoor Vikas Sangathan,

CB-06, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi- 110028.

VERSUS

1. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.,

East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi-110023.

Head Office: NBCC Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

2. NKG Infrastructure Ltd.,

D-112, Lal Quarter, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi-110023.

Also At:-

204, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.

AWARD

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

claimant stating that he was working with the management-1 through M-2 who is a contractor since 09.01.2019 as a

Store Incharge and his last drawn salary was Rs. 26,000/- per month. His service record was clean. He did his work

well and has not given any chance of making any complaint to the management nor was he charged while he was in

service. Management did not provide any legal facility i.e. appointment letter, minimum wages , leave Book,

overtime, card, wages according to post, bonus, casual leave & festivals‘ holiday etc. When the workman demanded

for said legal benefits, without issuing any notice, without charge-sheet or without any rhyme or reason management

had terminated his services illegally on 03.08.2021 which is a violation of section 25-F of the I.D. Act. He had

worked more than 240 days in a calendar year with the management. Thereafter, he had gone to the conciliation, but

it was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back

wages.

2. AR for the management no. 1 Sh. Sushil Kumar had appeared only for one time i.e. 24.04.2023. Thereafter,

neither he has appeared nor filed any WS. Management no. 2 has not been appearing since beginning. Notice

issued to management no. 2 received unserved. AR of the workman was required to file correct address of

management no. 2, but, he has not apprised the tribunal about fresh address since 11.09.2024.

3. In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in apprising the tribunal about fresh address of

management no. 2, this tribunal has no option except to pass no dispute award. Award is passed accordingly. A copy

of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to

record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 14.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1525.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार अयुक्त, दजक्षणी ददल्ली नगर जनगम, नइ ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती कमलेि एवं ऄन्य

के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड

सं्‍या- 223/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/182-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5833

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1525.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 223/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Commissioner; South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and Smt. Kamlesh and Ors.,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/182-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID No. 223/2018

Smt. Kamlesh and 2 Ors. vs. S.D.M.C.

Smt. Kamlesh and Ors.

Through- MCD General Union,

Room no. 95, Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi-110011.

…Applicants/Claimants

Versus

1. The Commissioner,

South Delhi Municipal Corporation, 9th Floor, Civic Centre,

Minto Road, New Delhi-11002.

… Management/respondent

Counsels:

For Applicants/ Claimants:

Sh. B.K. Prasad, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent:

Sh. Rajiv Bhardwaj, Ld. AR.

AWARD

11.07.2025

The appropriate government vide letter dated 26.11.2018, sent the following reference to this tribunal in

respect of three claimants:

"Whether Smt. Kamlesh w/o late Sh. Ram Kishan, is entitled to be regularized on the post of Mali w.e.f

01-07-2011. Whether Smt. Shakuntala w/o Late Sh. Raj Pal Singh and Smt. Usha w/o Late Sh. Sonder

Singh are also entitled to be regularized on the post of Mali w.e.f 03-09-2009, with all consequential

benefits including regular pay scale to each of the three workmen instead of Muster roll Mali by the

Management of South Delhi Municipal Corporation. If so, to what relief these workmen are entitled to

and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

The particulars of the claimants are as follows:

Sr. No

Name

Husband‘s Name

Date of Employment on Muster Roll Mali Date of Husband‘s Death

1

Smt. Kamlesh

Late Sh. Ram Kishan 01.07.2011

22.03.2010

2

Smt. Shakuntala Late Sh. Raj Pal

03.09.2011

29.01.2006

3

Smt. Usha

Late Sh. Sonder Singh 03.09.2009

06.01.2007

5834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The claimants, in pursuance of the reference, filed their claim statement, asserting that all three claimants,

whose particulars are given above in the table, are working as daily rated/ muster roll Malis on compassionate

grounds under the S.D.M.C., South Zone Green Park, New Delhi. They stated that their respective husbands were

regular employees of the management and died in harness. Consequently, the management engaged the claimants on

muster roll/ daily wage basis on compassionate grounds. However, they were entitled to appointment on the post of

regular Malis, along with all consequential benefits, including regular pay-scale from respective dates of their

engagement.

In response, the management filed its written statement, stating that the claim filed by the claimants is false,

frivolous, baseless and has been filed with malafide intention to compel the management to accede to the illegal and

unlawful demand of the claimants. Hence, the same is not legally maintainable. The management argued that:

No demand notice was served upon the management, and therefore, the present dispute doesn‘t fall within

the definition of an ‗Industrial Dispute‘.

Government jobs are not hereditary in nature and the purpose of compassionate employment is only to help

the family of a deceased employee get over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment.

The claimants‘ application for grant of compassionate appointment is hopelessly barred by delay and suffer

from legal infirmities.

There is only a very limited quota of 5% for appointment on compassionate ground on regular basis as per

Government of India Guidelines, only to very deserving candidates.

Even though, the management is not bound to give the appointment on compassionate ground, when no

vacancies are available at the relevant time under the prescribed 5% quota, it has framed a policy to provide

immediate help to such candidates who seek appointment on compassionate ground. Under this policy, the

eligible candidates are employed on daily wages or a contractual basis. If the vacancies arise later, their

regularization is considered based on seniority and financial condition.

Financial condition of smt. Kamlesh was very poor, she had three daughters, all of them unmarried.

Therefore, she was regularized w.e.f. 18.11.2016, while financial condition of Smt. Usha and Smt. Shakuntala were

found comparatively stable, having all of their respective children were married and living in good conditions. Due

to which, they were not found eligible for regularization under 5 % quota.

From pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

2. Whether the claimant Smt. Kamlesh is entitled to be regularized in the post of Mali w.e.f. 01.07.2011.

3. Whether the claimants Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Usha are entitled to be regularized in the post of Mali w.e.f.

03.09.2009 instead of being as Muster Roll Mali.

4. Whether the above named workmen are entitled to regular appointment on compassionate ground.

5. To what relief the parties are entitled to.

In order to substantiate the claimants‘ claim, Sh. B.K. Prasad, president of MCD General Mazdoor Union appeared

in the witness box. He deposed the following :

The deceased were employed as regular Malis, who died in harness, so the claimants, as their legal heirs,

are entitled to be appointed as regular Malis on compassionate grounds.

As per the policy Exhibited as Ex. WW1/1, the claimants are entitled to be appointed as regular Malis

instead of Muster Roll Malis from the date of initial engagement.

The claimants were engaged on muster roll basis w.e.f. their respective joining dates (mentioned in the table

above). Among them, only Smt. Kamlesh was regularized in the year 2016. However, she is also entitled to

be regularized from the date she joined as a muster roll employee.

The witness was cross-examined. He admitted that:

He didn‘t remember the date on which the claimants approached the union for redressal of his grievance.

The claimants gave a written representation to the union which is available in his office file but not filed in

this proceeding.

He denied that only 5% of the total vacancies can be filled up on the compassionate grounds.

He denied that this 5% compassionate appointment are made considering the hardship and acute need of an

individual.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5835

He failed to produce the date of registration of the union representing the claimants, the documents of

registration of the union or exact number of the body of the executives.

He admitted that no meeting of the union was held to espouse the cause of the workmen but the union took a

decision for such an espousal. However, no such agenda of the meeting was ever prepared.

In rebuttal, the management examined its witness, Sh. Surendra Singh, who reiterated the facts stated in the written

statement. He submitted that after considering economic financial condition of the claimants, appointment

letters were issued to them on contract basis on compassionate ground. He relied upon the following

documents :

1.

A copy of contractual and regular appointment of Smt. Kamlesh (Ex. MW1/A and MW1/B).

2.

A copy of contractual appointment of Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Usha (Ex. MW1/C)

The witness was cross-examined by AR for the claimant, where he admitted that :

The claimants were engaged on daily wage basis instead of compassionate appointment were discharging the

same duties as the regular Malis.

After death of the said regular Malis, the post remained vacant, and the claimants were engaged on daily

basis.

He didn‘t know if there was a policy of the Government preventing engagement of daily wagers against

regular posts.

He could not say if the demand notice was mandatory for invoking the provisions of section 2K of the I.D.

Act by the claimants.

The whole claim of the claimants is based on the premise that, instead of being appointed as regular Malis on

compassionate grounds, they were employed on muster roll/daily wage basis, upon the death of their respective

husbands. Since they have been performing their duties similar to those of regular Malis, they submit that they are

entitled to be regularized since the date of their joining as daily wagers.

According to the claimants, there is nothing on record, which denies their claim for appointment as regular

employees. It is therefore submitted by AR for the claimants, that they should be regularized. In support of his

argument, he relied upon a judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sh.

Rajesh (W.P. (c) No. 12996/2009) where the High court in similar circumstances granted relief to the claimant, and

he was entitled to be treated as regular employee with effect from the date of his initial appointment. Additionally, he

relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Surinder Singh & Anr. vs. the Engineer

in Chief, C.P.W.D. & Ors. (S.C.) A.T.R. 1986 S.C. 76, where the petitioners and all other daily rated employees

were directed to be paid the same salary and allowances as the regular and permanent employees working with the

respondent.

On the other hand, the management submitted that for appointments on compassionate grounds, the management has

to follow the DoPT guidelines, and they are not a matter or right. In order to help the families of the deceased

employees, the management framed a special scheme policy, under which, the dependents of the deceased

employees were offered employment on daily wage basis to provide immediate financial help. Moreover, the

management argued that appointment on compassionate grounds it is not a right of the claimants, and the same was

reiterated by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in 2005. The management also distinguished the judgment of

Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sh. Rajesh (W.P. (c) No. 12996/2009), mentioning that the welfare measure

circular of the MCD was not in existence at that time, and this tribunal had differentiated the same in its award dated

01.05.2023 in Smt. Naresh & 02 Ors. vs. The Commissioner, EDMC (I.D. no. 21/2019) where claim of the

claimants on similar grounds was rejected.

He also relied upon the judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no. 8540 of 2024 dated

13.11.2024, where the Hon‘ble court had held that:

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right as a condition of service of an employee, who dies in harness,

which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is

an appointment which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters as laid down with an

intention to help a family out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it get out of the emerging

urgent situation where the sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and maybe penniless.

In another judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no. 255 of 2025 passed on 11.02.2025,

where similar views were echoed by the Hon‘ble court.

I have heard the arguments presented by both parties. In light of above facts, evidence and arguments, my findings

on the issues are as follows:

5836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this respect, DoPT‘s scheme for compassionate appointment under the central government is applicable to the

MCD. The object of the scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of

a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical grounds, thereby leaving his family in penury

and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial

destitution and to help them get over the emergency. In the said scheme, Para 2 of DOPT O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt.

(D) dated 09.10.1998], described to whom it was applicable, the same reads as under:

To a dependent family member –

(A) of a Government servant who –

- (a) dies while in service (including death by suicide);

(b) or is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS (Medical Examination) Rules 1957 or the

corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years

for erstwhile Group „D‟ Government servants);

(c) or is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding

provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile

Group „D‟ Government servants); or

(B) of a member of the Armed Forces who – (a) dies during service; (b) or is killed in action; or (c) is

medically boarded out and is unfit for civil employment.

Note-I "Dependent Family Member" means:

(a) spouse; or

(b) son(including adopted son); or

(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or

(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant or

(e) member of the Armed Forces referred to in (A) or (B) of this para, -- who was wholly dependent on the

Government servant/ member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical

grounds, as the case may be.

Note II. ―Government servant" for the purpose of these instructions means a Government servant appointed

on regular basis and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re

employment basis.

Note III "Confirmed work-charged staff" will also be covered by the term „Government servant‟ mentioned in

Note II above.

Note IV "Service" includes extension in service (but not re-employment) after attaining the normal age of

retirement in a civil post.

Note V "Re-employment" does not include employment of ex-serviceman before the normal age of retirement

in a civil post.

It also prescribed the authority competent to make compassionate appointment. The same is as under:

(a) Joint Secretary in-charge of administration in the Ministry/Department concerned.

(b) Head of the Department under the Supplementary Rule 2(10) in the case of attached and subordinate offices.

(c) Secretary in the Ministry/Department concerned in special types of cases.

The scheme applies to the group ‗C‘ posts against the direct recruitment quota. There is also a provision for

a welfare officer to visit the family of the deceased employee after his sudden demise. Though the said scheme states

that appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on regular basis, that too only if regular vacancy

meant for that purpose are available. However, compassionate appointments can be made upto a maximum of 5% of

vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group ‗C‘ post. The appointing authority may hold back upto

5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories to be filled by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or

otherwise so as to fill such vacancies by appointment on compassionate grounds. A person selected for appointment

on compassionate grounds should be adjusted in the recruitment roster against the appropriate category viz SC/ST/

OBC/General depending upon the category to which he belongs. For example, if he belongs to SC category he will

be adjusted against the SC reservation point, if he is ST/OBC he will be adjusted against ST/OBC point and if he

belongs to General category he will be adjusted against the vacancy point meant for General category. While the

ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by

making appointment of dependent family member of Government servant on casual/daily wage/ad-hoc/contract basis

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5837

against regular vacancies, there is no bar to considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as per the normal

rules/orders governing such appointments. The ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for making

compassionate appointment should not be exceeded by utilising any other vacancy e.g. sports quota vacancy.

Issue No. 1:

Neither the claimant has led any evidence, nor has the management rebutted the same, in this respect.

However, considering that a reference sent to this tribunal, and the evidence led by the claimant on other aspects, it is

safely concluded that the proceeding is maintainable.

Issue No. 2:

AR for the claimants asserted that Smt. Kamlesh is entitled to be regularized to the post of Mali w.e.f.

01.07.2011, when she was initially appointed as a daily wager on compassionate grounds. However, in this regard, it

has to be made clear that the MCD is bound by the DoPT guidelines and directives. In order to help the families of

the deceased employees, the management framed a special scheme, under which, the dependents of the deceased

employees were offered employment on daily wage basis to provide immediate financial help. Since appointment on

regular basis require certain formalities such as assessments of financial condition and other formalities, the scheme

was introduced for immediate help. The word ‗compassionate‘ is used in the contract letter, however, it doesn‘t

suggest that the claimants were entitled to regularization without fulfilling the necessary criteria.

Smt. Kamlesh was regularized on the post of Mali w.e.f. 18.11.2016. Therefore, she cannot claim

regularization from the date of her initial appointment on contractual basis. The dependents of the deceased

employees have no right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. The authority concerned must look at the

other aspects. The management stated that Smt. Kamlesh was found suitable for regular appointment under the 5%

quota, so she was regularized in 2016. In these circumstances, Smt. Kamlesh cannot seek regularization for the date

of her initial appointment on contractual basis. The claimants‘ assertion that compassionate appointment was granted

to her initially on contractual basis holds no merit, as the scheme was introduced only to assist the dependents

through a due process of enquiry enquiry. Consequently, Smt. Kamlesh cannot be regularized from the date of her

initial appointment. Therefore, Issue no.-2 goes in favor of the management.

Issue no.-3:

Regarding the claim of Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Usha, the management stated that both were found

comparatively stable, having all of their respective children were married and living in good conditions. Due to

which, they were not found eligible for regularization under 5% quota.

Smt. Shakuntala and Smt. Usha failed to bring any evidence demonstrating financial hardship, or that that

they were denied regular appointments despite being bad financial condition.

As earlier discussed, the scheme was introduced by the management to provide immediate relief to the

aggrieved family and it is not the vested right of the dependents of a deceased employee to be appointed on regular

basis. The claimants failed to bring any evidence to demonstrate that they are entitled to be regularized in the 5%

quota considering their financial circumstances. Therefore, the rejection of the claims of Smt. Shakuntala and Smt.

Usha for regular appointment is held to be just and proper. Consequently, issue no.-3 is accordingly decided in favor

of the management.

In view of the above discussion, issue no.-4 is also decided in favor of the management.

In light of the above findings, the reference is answered against the claimants and in favor of the

management. Accordingly, the claim of the claimants stands dismissed. A copy of this award be sent to the

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

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated 11.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1526.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार अयुक्त, दजक्षणी ददल्ली नगर जनगम, नइ ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सुश्री सजवता के बीच

ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड सं्‍या-

299/2022) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/183-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

5838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1526.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 299/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Commissioner; South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi and Ms. Savita, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/183-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID No. 299/2022

Ms. Savita, D/o Sh. Girish Chauhan,

Through- MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No. 95, Barrack No. 1/10, Jam Nagar House,

Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

The Commissioner,

South Delhi Municipal Corporation,

9th Floor, Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg,

Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.

…Management/Respondents

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh. B.K Prasad, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent:

Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. AR.

AWARD

1.

This order shall dispose of the issue no. 1 regarding maintainability of the petition. In view of the fact that

the claimant‘s claims to be workman, though, she is a practicing lawyer, this tribunal on 05.03.2024 had framed the

preliminary issue. When the matter was listed for argument, counsel for the claimant stated that he had preferred the

writ petition before the Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi. Nevertheless, thereafter, he has filed the written notes of

arguments as well as case law in support of their contention.

2.

Before proceeding further, the fact of this case is required to be reproduced. 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 and Employment, vide its Order No. L-

42011/298/2022-IR(DU) dated 11.11.2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of South Delhi Municipal Corporation and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal,

terms of which are as under:

―Whether the demands of Ms Savita D/o Shri Girish Chauhan through MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Delhi vide letter dated 06.03.2022 to the management of South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi

for wages on the principle of ―Equal Pay for Equal Work‖ and regular status since her initial employment

i.e. 16.02.2016 in the category/ pay-scale of Junior Law Officer alongwith all consequential benefits and

treating her in duty during her mild protest, are proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief as sought

vide letter under reference are the disputant entitled and what direction(s), if any, is necessary in the

matter?‖

3.

Claimant had filed her claim statement stating that in the year 2015 management had notified vacancies for

the post of Jr. Law Officer in its website and in response to the same she had submitted her application. She was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5839

asked to appear in a test and interview conducted by the management. Being found suitable, she was selected

through a selection procedure and appointment letter was issued to her. She had joined the office of SDMC (Law

Department) as a front door entry w.e.f 16.02.2016 and started work under the direct control, supervision and

premises of the management. She was keeping complete track of cases, updating them in legal software of MCD and

ensuring drafting of appropriate replies/WS from the department. She claimed to be workman U/s 2(s) of the ID Act,

1947 as she was not working in any managerial or supervisory capacity and receiving wages as per Section 2(rr) of

the ID Act, 1947. Management has violated the provisions of ―The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 which fixes duty

of employer to pay equal remuneration to men and women for the same work or work of similar nature. She also

submitted that her counterpart i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Jr. Law Officer who worked similar in nature was being paid

all the benefits of post while she was getting Rs. 25,000/- (fixed) + 3500/- (Conveyance Allowance) for almost six

years i.e. since her initial employment i.e. 16.02.2016 to 30.11.2021 which attracts bonded labour system. As such

she has made prayer that she be entitled for Equal Pay for Equal Work and regular status since her initial

employment in the category and pay-scale of Jr. Law Officer in place of Retainer along with consequential benefits.

4.

Management has filed its written statement refuting the claim of the claimant stating that she has placed

false and fabricate case. She was initially engaged as a Retainer on 16.02.2016 vide letter no. CLO/Law

(HQ)/SDMC/2016/D-5058 with the conditions specified therein. She claimed wages on the principle of ‗equal pay

for equal work‘ and regular status in the category of pay scale of Junior Law Officer which is bad in the eyes of law

as there is no sanctioned post of the Retainer in the corporation. No recruitment rule for the post of Retainer has been

made. No such post advertised by the corporation at any point of time. Claimant was neither selected as Junior Law

Officer nor offered any appointment letter for the post of Jr. Law Officer. She had worked as a Retainer and the

corporation had availed her services as a lawyer/consultant on a fixed fees paid in advance to her services. Claimant

cannot claim the wages at par with the Jr. Law Officer as the claimant is a legal practitioner and also indulge in legal

practices. She was not restrained to perform her private litigation. Clause-2 of the engagement letter as Retainer only

speaks that she will not accept any brief/appear in the court matters against South Delhi Municipal Corporation.

5.

After completion of the pleadings vide order dated 20.04.2023, following issues have been framed:

I.

Whether the proceeding is maintainable and the claimant is a workman defined under the Act?

II.

Whether the claimant W.S denied equal pay for equal work by the management during here employment

since 16.02.2016 service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the management no. 2?

III.

Whether the claimant is justified in demanding regular employee status from the date of initial

employment?

IV.

To what other relief the parties entitled to and from which date?

6.

After framing of the issues, examination in chief and cross-examination of the claimant has been recorded.

7.

However, after going through the content of the claim petition, it was revealed that claimant claims to be a

workman who in fact is a practicing advocate. Her license had not been suspended while she was serving. The very

first issue has been framed by this Tribunal regarding maintainability of the claim. However, she claims to be a

workman herein.

8.

In this regard, definition of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is required to be reproduced herein:

―Workman‖ means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms

of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in

connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment has led

to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per

mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties, attached to the office o by reason of the powers

vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]

9.

Definition of the workman as provided U/s 2(s) is wide enough to include any person as workman in respect

of his earning, however, section has itself carved out the exception as Clause-(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The 2nd exception

stated that, the person who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison is

excluded from the category of the workman. The 4th exception stated that, person being employed in a supervisory

5840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

capacity, drawing wages exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month is excluded from the category of the workman.

10.

Claimant on the strength of this definition claims to be a workman, though, she is a practicing lawyer and

has the license to practice issued by the Bar Council of Delhi. She claims that she be given the pay scale of Junior

Law Officer (JLO) since her initial appointment because she did the same job as to the work done by Junior Law

Officer.

11.

In this regard, engagement letters as a retainer issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation from time

to time to the claimant are important. Contents of each and every letters are the same except the change of the dates

in case of extension of retainership. It has been addressed to Ms. Savita, Advocate, H. No. 160, Boudh Vihar, Near

Arya Bhatt International School, Ghaziabad (UP).

12.

In this regard, engagement letter dated 16.02.2016 is required to be pasted herein:

13.

Clause-2 of the said letter stated that she shall not accept any brief/appear in the court matters against the

South Delhi Municipal Corporation in any court law.

14.

Claimant‘s AR Sh. B.K Prasad had filed the written submission where he had stated that as per the

judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of ―D.P Maheswari vs. Delhi Administration &

Others‖, it has been held that court shall decide all issues in disputes not in a part manner. He further placed reliance

on section 36(4) of the I.D. Act wherein the appearance of the legal practitioner on behalf of the management is

debarred. His contention is that in such scenario, where the legal practitioner has been barred under section 36(4),

retainer can appear. Supreme Court of India in the full judgment titled ―Paradip Port Trust vs. Their Workmen‖

had stated that the ―Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a special piece of legislation with the avowed aim of labour

welfare and representation before adjudicatory authorities and this special Act will prevail over the Advocates Act,

1961 which is a general piece of legislation with regard to the subject matter of appearance of lawyers before all

courts, tribunals and other authorities”. Entire argument of the counsel of the workman revolves around the fact that

the inspite of the bar created by section 36(4) of the I.D. Act, claimant can appear before the court on behalf of the

MCD as a Retainer, even, in case, claimant took objection for her appearance.

15.

Argument advanced by the AR of the workman is mis-conceived. Bar created by Section 36 (4) of the I.D.

Act has nothing to do with the present case. Here, the court has to see whether the claimant falls within the definition

of the workman as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Bar of the Section 36(4) of the Act is applicable only

when the workman has not been represented by the legal practitioner. If the workman has been represented by the

legal practitioner, then, he cannot take plea that the management would not be represented by the professional

lawyer. Here, the claimant had been appearing on behalf of the SDMC. So, for the sake of, if assume that the

claimant had been appearing as a professional retainer, claimant cannot take the plea of stopping the management as

being represented by legal practitioner. If that has to be happened, then, the management can take the shelter of

retainer-ship, which legislature has no intention.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5841

16.

Further in the judgment of Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C (U.P) Ltd. vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava &Anr,

Civil Appeal No. 1839 of 2005 decided on 01.12.2006, Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, referred the case of

Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ajit Singh (2005) 3 SCC 232 where the respondent being posted as

―Legal Assistant‖ the qualification for which was degree in law with a practicing license and his duties was to

prepare written statements and notices, recording enquiry proceedings, giving opinions to the management, drafting,

filing the pleadings and representing the appellant in all types of cases, was not held to be a workman because the

respondent has not been performing any stereotype job. His job involved creativity. Further in the said judgment

distinction was drawn between occupation and profession. Occupation is a principal activity (job, work or calling)

that earns money (regular ware or salary) for a person and a profession is an occupation that requires extensive

training and the study and mastery of specialized knowledge, and usually has a professional association, ethical code

and process of certification or licensing. Classically, there were only three professions i.e. ministry, medicine and

law. These three professions each hold to a specific code of ethics, and members are almost universally required to

swear some form of oath to uphold those ethics, therefore ―professing‖ to a higher standard of accountability. Thus,

the lawyer having a practicing license cannot be termed as a workman.

17.

In that above said judgment, the workman was the government employee not as the retainer. He could not

take any assignment from anybody except the legal duty assigned to him. Inspite of this, he was not held to be a

workman. Here, the clause-2 of the appointment letter has given the liberty to the claimant to take the assignment of

the cases from the private parties. Bar is only that he shall not appear in any court of law against the South Delhi

Municipal Corporation. So, the case of the workman is of lesser footing than that of the case decided by the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court of India in Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C (U.P) Ltd. vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava &Anr, Civil

Appeal No. 1839 of 2005.

18.

Further, in this regard, Rule 49 framed under section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is relevant. Rule 49 of

the Advocates Act is required to be reproduced herein:

―49. An Advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or

concern, so long as he continues to practice, and shall, on taking up any employment, intimate the fact to the Bar

Council on whose roll his name appears, and shall thereupon cease to practice as an advocate so long he

continues in such employment‖

19.

The aforesaid rule completely prohibits an advocate from taking any fulltime employment during his

continuance of practice and provides that if he so takes up employment, he shall inform the Bar Council where upon

he shall cease to be in practice as an advocate so long his employment continues.

20.

Here, the claimant has not informed the Bar Council for taking the fulltime assignment, requesting to

surrender the license. Her job profile is to present the case, preparing written statement and make defense which only

a professional can do. Her job involved creativity. For becoming an Advocate, requires extensive training. Advocate

has a professional association, ethical code and process of certification. Therefore, being an Advocate, claimant

being the retainer or government employee represented the government in the legal manner cannot claim to be a

workman.

21.

In view of the facts discussed above, claimant does not fall within the definition of the workman.

Therefore, preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the claim decides against the workman and in favour of the

management.

22.

In these circumstances, when the claimant does not fall within the definition of the workman, her claim

petition in pursuance to the reference received also stands dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly. A copy of

this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Record of this file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 10.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1527.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

आंजीजनयठरग आंजडया जलजमटेड, नइ ददल्ली; जी-4एस फजजसजलटी सर्मवसेज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, नइ ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राजेंर हसह ृंवार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम

न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभड सं्‍या- 244/2019 ) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती

हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/184-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

5842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1527.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 244/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Engineering India Ltd., New Delhi; G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and Sh. Rajender

Singh Panwar, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/184-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID No. 244/2019

Sh. Rajender Singh Panwar vs. Engineering India Ltd. and Anr.

Sh. Rajender Singh Panwar,

S/o Sh. Ranjit Singh Panwar,

R/o-1119/45, DDA Flat Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

1. Engineering India Ltd.

Engineers India Bhawan,

01, BhikajiCama Place, New Delhi-110066.

2. G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No.-227, Block-A, 01st Floor, Sector-17,

Dwarka, New Delhi-110078.

… Managements/respondents

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh. Sunil Kumar, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent:

Sh. AbhishekVerma and Sh. Tarun, Ld. ARs for management-1 (EIL).

Management-2 (G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.) was proceeded ex-parte.

Award

29.05.2025

The present petition has been filed under section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(Herein after

referred as ‗the Act‘).The claimant submits that he was employed as a driver with G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.

for five years and was deputed at the premises of Management-1His last drawn salary was Rs. 12,800/-. He

performed his duty with utmost satisfaction with the management and no complaint was ever received from the

management during his service tenure. However, the management refused to give him duty and terminated his

services w.e.f. 31.08.2017 without any valid reason, any prior notice and in violation of section 25F, G and H of the

Act. Therefore, he seeks reinstatement with full back wages and requests that his termination be declared illegal.

In response to the claim, management-1 filed a reply opposing that the claim against them is totally false,

wrong and misconceived. There was no breach of any contractual obligation or contravention of any provision of

labour law that can be imputed upon the answering respondent. In fact, management-1 had executed a master lease

agreement dated 11.11.2023 with lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd. (LPIN), a company incorporated under the companies

Act, 1956, whereby LPIN indemnified management-1 against any and all loss, costs, claims, damages etc. As per

article 2.2(x) of the agreement, chauffeurs were to be provided by LPIN through an external agency, namely M/s

G4S Facility services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, management-1 submitted that there was no employer-employee

relationship between them and the claimant.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5843

Management-2 failed to appear in the proceedings and was proceeded ex-parte.

From pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable for non-joinder of parties.

2. Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between respondent-1 (Engineers India Ltd.) and

the claimant.

3. Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by management-1.

4. To what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which date.

In order to prove his claim, the claimant examined himself by appearing in the witness box, reiterating the stand

taken by him in the claim statement. He relied upon six documents which are as follows:

1. Copy of failure report under section 2-A of the Act dated 16.07.2019 (Ex. WW1/1).

2. Complaint filed before ALC dated 03.07.2018 (Ex. WW1/2).

3. A copy of the Identity Card issued by management-2 (G4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.). (Mark A).

4. Pay slip from August 2016 to June 2017 (Colly). (Ex. WW1/3).

5. A copy of pay slip of July 2017. (Mark B).

6. Attendance sheet from November 2013 to August 2017 of the claimants maintained by management-2 (G4S

Facility). (Mark C).

In rebuttal, management-1 (EIL) had examined one witness, Sh. Karan Deep, the management‘s witness

took the same stand as mentioned in the written statement that there no employer-employee relationship existed

between management-1 and the claimant.

The claimant argues that he was engaged by management-1 through management-2 (contractor), and his

services were terminated illegally by management-2. On the contrary, management-1 has rested its arguments on the

premise that there didn‘t exist any employee-employer relationship between them and the claimant, as his agreement

was executed through Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd. (LPIN), whereby LPIN had indemnified management-1 (EIL)

against any and all loss, costs, claims, damages, etc. It is further submitted that as per the agreement, chauffeurs were

to be provided by LPIN through an external agency viz M/s G4S Facility services (management-2). Lastly, the

management submitted that the present claim should be dismissed due to misjoinder of parties.

In light of above arguments and evidence, my issue-wise findings are as under:

Issue no. 1 :

Management-1 took the plea that the claim petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of a party (Lease

Plan India Pvt. Ltd). However, in this regard, it has to be considered that the claimant was unaware of any agreement

between management-1 (EIL) and LPIN. As per his cross-examination, he was appointed by G-4S Facility Services

Pvt. Ltd(management-2) and appointed at the premises of management-1. Therefore, the issue that the claim petition

is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties, is decided in favor of the claimant, and against the managements.

Issue no. 2 and 3:

Management-1 asserted that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and the claimant.

It drew attention of the tribunal towards the claimant‘s cross-examination, where the claimant admitted that his

Identity Card(mark-A) was issued by management-2, and management-1 didn‘t issue any identity card to him. He

further admitted that his Pay Slip(Ex. WW1/3) and attendance sheet (mark-C)were also issued by management-2. It

was further stated by him that he had no concern with management-1, and entire control, supervision and payment of

salary to the claimant was maintained by management-2. Therefore, no relationship of employee-employer ever

existed between the claimant and management-1.

Management-1 relied upon the judgment of Baburam vs. GNCTD, 2018, SCC Online Del 7243,

where it was held that the burden of proving the existence of employer-employee relationship lies on the person

asserting it, and mere self-serving statements are not sufficient without concrete evidence. It also relied upon a

decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of workmen of Niligiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State

of T.N. (2004) 3 SCC 514,where it was held that burden of proving the existence of employee-employer relationship

lies on the person asserting it, and such determination is a pure question of facts, not to be interfered with by the

court, unless the finding is clearly erroneous and perverse. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

―Burden of proof

47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of

employer and employee, the burden would be upon him. 48. In N.C. John v. Secy., ThodupuzhaTaluk Shop and

5844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Commercial Establishment Workers' Union [1973 Lab IC 398: (1973) 1 LLJ 366 (Ker)] the Kerala High Court

held: (LAB IC p. 402, para 9)

The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer-employee relationship an adverse

inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have

proved employer-employee relationship.

49. InSwapan Das Gupta v. First Labour Court of W.B. [1976 Lab IC 202 (Cal)] it has been held: (LAB IC

para 10)

Where a person asserts that he was a workman of the company and it is denied by the company, it is for him to

prove the fact. It is not for the company to prove that he was not an employee of the company but of some other

person.

50. The question whether the relationship between the parties is one of employer and employee is a pure

question of fact and ordinarily the High Court while exercising its power of judicial review shall not interfere

therewith unless the finding is manifestly or obviously erroneous or perverse."

In this respect, the affidavit of the claimant is self-explanatory where he asserted that he was working as per

instructions of management-2and received his wages from management-2.

Considering the above evidence and the fact, issue-2 and 3are decided in favor of management-1 and against the

claimant. Therefore, management-1 is not responsible for the claimant‘s illegal termination.

Issue no.-4

Now the question iswhat relief the claimant is entitled to. Entire documentary evidence suggests that the claimant

was an employee of management-2 (G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd). Pay slip (Ex. WW1/3) and identity card (mark

A) indicate that the claimant was an employee of G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.The attendance sheet from

November 2013 to August 2017 (Mark C) also indicates that the claimant was an employee of G-4S Facility Services

Pvt. Ltd., as these documents bear official mark of G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.

The claimant stated in his evidence that he was employed with management-2 for the last five years, and has proved

the same by documentary evidence showing that his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.08.2017. As management-2

failed to appear and cross-examine the claimant, his statement is presumed to be true. Therefore, it is proved that the

claimant was an employee of management-2.

There is no absolute protection provided to a claimant in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against termination. A

termination is held to be illegal only if the employer fails to fulfill the conditions prescribed under section 25F of the

Act. The relevant provisions of section 25F, G and H of the Act are required to be produced herein:

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No workman employed in any industry who has

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

employer until-

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

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

of the notice;

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

fifteen days' average pay 2 [for every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of

six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3 [or such authority as may be

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

25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of

India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the

absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall

ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons

to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.

25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer

proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an

opportunity 4[to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment

and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other

persons.

Here in the present case, neither one month‘s notice nor notice pay was given to the claimant before termination, nor

was any retrenchment compensation paid. In absence of any evidence contrary to the above statement, statement of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5845

the claimant remains uncontested and unrebutted. Therefore, it is held that the claimant‘s services were terminated

illegally and unjustifiably.

As a general rule, when termination is declaredillegal, 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 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. 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. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) is considered an

appropriate relief. Hence, management-2 (G-4S Facility Services Pvt. Ltd.) is hereby directed to pay a compensation

of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three 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 U/S 17 of the I.D

Act. The file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated 29.05.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1528.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मु्‍य ऄजभयंता, जसजवल जनमाडण आकाइ, वन एवं जलवायु ृररवतडन मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार, नइ ददल्ली के

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री मुनेन्र कुमार, िामली, ईत्तर प्रदेि के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभड सं्‍या- 71/2020) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में

ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/185-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1528.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Chief Engineer, Civil Construction Unit, Ministry of Forest & Climate Change, Govt. of

India, New Delhi and Sh. Munender Kumar, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, which was received along with soft copy

of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/185-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. 2, DELHI

ID No. 71/2020

Sh. Munender Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh,

Village-Sikanderpur (Bhadi Mazra),

Post office- Jhinjhana Rural, Jinjhana, Tehsil-Kairanam,

District- Shamli, Uttar Pradesh- 247773.

5846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

VERSUS

The Chief Engineer, Civil Construction Unit,

Ministry of Forest & Climate Change, Govt. of India,

7th Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi-110003.

Present: Sh. Nagmani Roy, Ld. AR for the workman.

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

Award

1. Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment has sent the reference in regard to the

claimant Sh. Munender Kumar for adjudication. Reference has been worded as:

―Whether the services of the workman Sh. Munender Kumar S/o Late Sh. Mahipal Singh have been

terminated by the management illegally and/or unjustifiably? And if so to what relief is he entitled and

what directions are necessary in this regard?‖

Upon receiving of this reference, notice was sent to both the parties. Claimant filed the claim statement stating that

he was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and was engaged at the post of

waterman for a impugned period of 60 days from 10.07.2008 to 07.09.2008 in the office of Ministry of

Environment, forest and climate change, Civil Construction Unit, 7th Floor, ParyavaranBhawan, CGO

Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003 vide office order no. 29/03/2008/CCU/1047 dated 15.07.2008 on

purely temporary basis. He served his duties diligently and honestly for 90 days. Though he was employed for the

period of 60 days, but his services had been continued till 24th-25th of October, 2008. He was issued a photo

identity Card/pass by Ministry of Home Affairs (Govt. of India) bearing No. Q 32655 Non-Official dated

24.07.2008 for a period of 90 days under the seal of Supervisor, Ministry of Home Affairs. He had signed in the

register of Attendance/ Muster Roll. It is the case of workman that during the continuity of his service, a premature

child was born and for this, natural leave was sought and was granted to him. He was assured that his service

would continue as permanent. When the said child had recovered and he came to join the services in the first week

of December, 2008, his services were terminated. He seeks his reinstatement with full back wages.

2. Written Statement has been filed by the respondent. Respondent has taken the preliminary objections stating

that claimant has no locus standi for filing the claim because no industrial dispute was apprehended between

claimant and respondent; claim is not maintainable because the respondent performs the sovereign function of

Government and does not carry out the activity which can be considered as a trade or business and also does not

carry out any activity related to production, distribution or supply of goods or services meant for satisfying the

human wants. Claim petition is not maintainable as the claimant has not come with clean hands and concocted the

material before this tribunal. No demand notice was served. On merit, it has been stated by the management that

claimant was engaged on daily and purely temporary basis from 15.07.2008 to 07.09.2008. He had worked for 15

days in month of July, 2008 and for 20 days in the month of August, 2008 which is evident from the record in the

office. An amount of Rs. 2100/- was paid for the month of July, 2008 and Rs. 2800/- for the month of august, 2008

through hand receipts. Workman/claimant didn‘t work for 90 days, instead he had only worked for 35 days. There

was no clause of extension/continuation of period in the order vide letter no. 29/03/2008/CCU/1047 dated

15.07.2008. Management denied that claimant had ever received Rs. 12,600/- from the management as alleged.

The workman himself stopped coming to the office after august, 2008. He submits that their claim be dismissed

with cost.

3. Claimant has filed the rejoinder denying the averment made by management in his Written Statement and

affirmed the facts made in his claim statement.

4. After completion of pleadings vide order dated 10.11.2021, following issues had been framed:

a.

Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

b.

Whether the services of the claimant has been illegally terminated by the management.

c.

To what other relief the claimant is entitled.

5. Claimant was asked to examine its witnesses. Claimant in order to substantiate his claim, had examined

himself as WW1/A. In rebuttal, management had also examined one witness i.e. Sh. Rajesh Kumar. Workman has

reiterated the facts mentioned in his claim statement. He has relied upon 19 documents and exhibited the same as

WW1/1 to WW1/19.

6. Management witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in written statement and has relied upon five

documents in its affidavit of evidence i.e.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5847

(i)

Ex. MW1/1 is the office order showing the appointment letter of the workman for the 60 days i.e.

From 10 July to 7 Sep. 2008 @ Rs. 140/- per day.

(ii)

Ex. MW1/2 is the Hand receipts of the payment of Rs. 2100/- and Rs. 2800/- to the workman Sh.

Munender.

(iii)

Ex. MW1/3 is the information sought by the

workman Sh. Munender under the RTI.

(iv) Ex. MW1/4 is the office memorandum regarding the grievance of the appointment of the workman Sh.

Munender.

(v) Ex. MW1/5 is the engagement of waterman on daily wages.

7. Claimant‘s whole case is based upon the fact that he was appointed as ―Waterman‖ by the respondent for the

period of 90 days and his services have been disengaged without any fault. He submitted that he has received the

wages in total Rs. 12,600/- for his services for July, 2008 to October, 2008. His services were illegally terminated

on 04.12.2008. While, the case of the respondent is that workman was only appointed on daily wages for the

period of 60 days and thereafter, his services have been discontinued.

8. In this respect, the word ―retrenchment which has been defined in Section 2(oo) of the I.D Act is required to

be reproduced herein:

Section 2(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

(c) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the on-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]

(d) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;]

9. Clause-(a), (b), (bb) and (c) have been carved out the exception from the definition of the retrenchment.

Clause 2 (bb) which has been inserted by the Act 49 of 1984 w.e.f. 18.08.1984 had stated that when the services 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.

10. Ex. MW1/1 which has been admitted by both the parties is the appointment letter. The same is pasted herein

below:

11. From the Ex. MW1/1, it appears that, though, the workman was sponsored by the employment exchange of

R.K. Puram, New Delhi, but his engagement on daily wages was only for a period of 60 days from 10 July to 7

5848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sep., 2008 @ Rs. 140/- per day.

12. Ex. MW1/2 is the receipts of the payments, wherein Rs. 2100/- and Rs. 2800/- were paid to the workman

for the work he had done.

13. Workman has not produced any record that his services were extended thereafter at any point of time. His

contention is that he was terminated on 04.12.2008. However, that fact has not been corroborated by any evidence.

Workman himself admitted in his cross-examination that, during the course of employment, he was getting Rs. 140

per day. He further submitted that, he had applied leave for ten days and his application was made on 25.10.2008,

but, he has not produced the same.

14. In the said circumstances, it can only be said that the workman contract has not been renewed after two

months. He was paid the amount of Rs. 49,000/- in respect of his work done during that period. Even, if the

workman assertion has been taken as true that he has worked and his services have been terminated on 04.12.2008

then, also he has not been given any protection. For getting protection against their termination, claimant has to

complete 240 days in a calendar year. Section 25-F has put the condition precedent to the retrenchment of the

workman. The text of Section 25-F is required to be reproduced herein:

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.]

15. The above text reveals that the workman employed in an industry cannot be terminated who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer without fulfilling the condition of (a), (b) & (c).

16. In the case in hand, the claimant himself admitted that he had served only for four months. Therefore, even,

he assumed that he had worked for four months, then also his services cannot be said to be terminated illegally.

17. In view of the above facts on record, issue no. 1 which is regarding the maintainability of the proceeding

decided against the workman and in favour of the management.

18. In view of the above facts on record, Issue no. 2 & 3 are not required to be decided.

19. In these circumstances, claim petition filed by the claimant in pursuance to the reference received stands

dismissed. Reference is answered accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947. Record of this file is consigned to record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding officer

Date: 25.06.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1529.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार अयुक्त, ृूवी ददल्ली नगर जनगम, िहादरा, ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री रजवन्र हसह,

नइ ददल्ली के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट

(संदभड सं्‍या- 226/2018) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/186-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1529.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 226/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5849

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Shahadra, Delhi and Sh. Ravinder Singh,

New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/186-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, No. 2 DELHI

ID No. 226/2018

Sh. Ravinder Singh, S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh,

Through-MCD General Mazdoor Union,

C/o Room NO. 95, Jam Nagar House,

Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.

VERSUS

The Commissioner,

East Delhi Municipal Corporation,

Udyog Sadan, Plot No. 419,

Patparganj Industrial Area,

Shahadra, Delhi-110032.

Present: Sh. B.K Prasad, Ld. AR for the claimant.

Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. AR for the management.

AWARD

1. 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 and

Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/53/2018-IR (DU) dated 20.11.2018 has been pleased to refer the following

dispute between the employer, that is the Management of East Delhi Municipal Corporation and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under:

―Whether the Industrial Dispute between Sh. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh raised by the MCD

General Mazdoor Union and East Delhi Municipal Corporation regarding the entitlement of the wages of

Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.04.1990 in the pay scale of 950-1500 till 03.03.2014 with all consequential

benefits is fair and legal? If so, what relief the Union and workman are entitled to?‖

In pursuance to the reference, claimant had filed the claim statement stated that he has been employed on Muster

Roll Mali on 01.04.1981. Thereafter, he was initially appointed as regular Mali on 01.04.1988. He had been

performing the duty of an Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1990 till his superannuation up to 04.03.2014 under

Shahadara Zone (Horticulture). Management has fixed the different pay scales to their employees including Mali,

Chaudhary etc. in accordance to their job profile. He was not given the grant of proper pay scale of officiating

Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.04.1990 to till 03.03.2014 which amount to force labour and the management is

indulging in unfair labour practice. He had got the payment in lower pay scale of Mali Rs. 750-940/- revised from

time to time and he has been denied the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- for his duty performed as Chaudhary w.e.f.

01.04.1990 revised from time to time. He had stated that Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Jai Chand vs.

MCD (CW No. 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment vide order dated 02.05.2003 for the post of

Chaudhary. The same stand has been taken by the Hon‘ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the matter of

MCD vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 7947/2010. As such, he claims that he may be awarded the payment

of Acting Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- revised from time to time to him w.e.f. 01.04.1990 up to his

superannuation.

2. Respondent herein has filed the W.S. stating that the claimant does not disclose the correct facts and has filed the

claim without any locus. Workman is not eligible for any kind of relief as prayed by him in the present application

and the said application is nothing but an abuse of process of law and waste of precious judicial time. He submitted

that management corporation has taken a time to time a Trade Test for Garden Chaudhary post so, workman cannot

claim the wages for without giving departmental test. He further submitted that the workman has appeared in Trade

Test in the year 2013, thereafter, he was promoted for the post of Garden Chaudhary. It has been submitted by him

that after promotion as a Chaudhary in March, 2014 and on his retirement he had received all the consequential

benefit of his retirement. He submitted that Management Corporation has its own policy of promotion for Garden

5850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Chaudhary i.e. in the phased manner and availability of funds and post, so workman cannot claim for the promotion

regarding pay scale for Garden Chaudhary post from the date of 01.04.1990. He had denied that the management has

fixed any pay scale for officiating Chaudhary. However, he had admitted that there are different pay scales for

different posts. He submitted that claim petition be dismissed.

3. After completion of pleadings vide order dated 04.07.2022, following issues had been framed:

a.

Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

b. Whether the claimant is entitled to the wage of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.04.1990 in the pay scale of 950-

1500 till 03.03.2014 with all other consequential service benefits.

c.

To what other relief the claimant is entitled to.

4. In order to prove its claim, the workman himself had entered into the witness box. He submitted that he was

working as a permanent Mali in the management since 01.04.1988. He deposed the fact that he was allotted the work

of Garden Chaudhary w.e.f. 03.03.1990 and performed his duty under West Zone (Horticulture) and was transferred

from West Zone to South Zone Green Park in the year 2006 and then further was transferred from South Zone to

Shahdara South Zone in the year 2009 till his superannuation up to 31.08.2023. His name has been appearing at

Serial No. 6 in the list of officiating Chaudhary issued by the Dy. Director (Horticulture) West Zone which is

Exhibit WW1/1. He submitted that he is entitled to the wages of Acting Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500

revised from time to time w.e.f. 01.01.1990 up to 03.03.2014 along with all consequential benefits.

5. Witness was put to the cross-examination where he admitted that he had never lodged any complaint in the office

of the management, claiming his unpaid dues which are the subject matter of the present proceeding since he was

told that his matter shall be taken up by the management with the case of similarly placed person. In the year 2014 he

has got the promotion to the post of Garden Chaudhary from the post of Mali. He had filed the document which has

been marked as Ex. WW1/1. He had denied that the claim has been filed on the basis of false and fabricated

document.

6. In rebuttal, one Sh. Rajit Kumar, Assitant Commissioner, Shahadra South Zone, Horticulture Department, MCD

has been examined by the management, wherein he had reiterated the facts and mentioned by him in the W.S.

7. MW1 was put to cross-examination where he admitted that workman was working as Acting Chaudhary, he was

promoted in September, 2014. He also admitted that the document Ex. WW1/1 which is the list issued by

management in which the name of the present workman was mentioned at Sr. No. 6 and also mentioned that he is

Acting Chaudhary since January 1990.

8. I have heard the argument at par, perused the record and analyzed the evidence. The whole of the case of the

claimant rest upon the facts that management witness has admitted the list Ex. WW1/1 wherein name of the

workman had been shown at S.No. 6. He was 10th pass, appointed as ―Mali‖ on 01.04.1988 and looking after the

work of Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1990. He had made prayer that considering the above facts on record and in

view of the judgment passed by the Hon‘ble High Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan

Singh & others W.P. (C) No. 7947 of 2010, decided on 20.04.2011 where similarly placed person had been given

the higher scale so he be given the pay scale of Acting Chaudhary revised from time to time.

9. While the respondent stand is that the workman‘s service was earlier regularized as Mali in 1988 and he was

promoted in the year September, 2014 and till then he has been paid all the benefit of the Acting Chaudhary. He was

retired in the year 2023 and he had been paid all the benefits therein. He further submits that workman is not entitled

to the benefit for the pay scale of the Acting Chaudhary for the period which he claims.

10. Here, it is not disputed that the claimant has not been working as Acting Chaudhary since 1990. MW1 himself

admitted the list issued by management where the name of the claimant has been shown as 10th pass and has been

working as an Acting Chaudhary since 1990. Operating portion of the judgment of Sultan Singh & Others in which

the workman has placed reliance, where in para no. 28, it was observed:

―28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary

as they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that

they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not

competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be

appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt

that respondents are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having

worked on ad-hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not

having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.‖

11. It is not out of place mention here that even if the claimant herein was not a party in Sultan‟s case referred

above, judgment of Hon‘ble High Court is binding on the management and the management is required to implement

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5851

the same. When the workman had been assigned the job of an ‗Acting Chaudhary‘ i.e. a higher post then that of

‗Mali‘ for so long (for the last 24 years), and has been designated as Chaudhary, then, pay and allowance of

Chaudhary be given to him instead of Mali.

11. In view of the above discussion, workman/claimant is entitled to the pay scale of Acting Chaudhary since 1990

to 2014, when he was actually promoted to the post of Chaudhary. Respondent herein is liable to pay the difference

of the wages of Mali and Acting Chaudhary from the date, when the workman herein was performing duty till he was

actually promoted. Management is directed to pay the entire difference of the salary within two months from the date

of passing the award. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for

notification as required under section 17 of the I.D Act, 1947.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding officer

Date: 11.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1530.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार ब्रॉडकास्ट्ट आंजीजनयठरग कंसल्टेंट आंजडया जलजमटेड, ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती िोभा

देवी और 03 ऄन्य, नोएडा के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II

नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभड सं्‍या- 22/2015) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/187-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1530.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Broadcast Engineering Consultant India Ltd., Delhi and Smt. Shobha Devi and 03 others, Noida,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/187-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID No. 22/2015

Smt. Shobha Devi and 03 Ors. (Legal heirs of Late Sh. Govind Singh Dhami) vs. B.E.C.I.L.

Smt. Shobha Devi and 03 others

Legal heirs of Sh. Govind Singh Dhami,

R/o B-1, Sector-31, Noida.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

Broadcast Engineering Consultant India Ltd.

Through The General Manager/ The Administration Office

14-B, I.P. Estate, Ring Road,

I.T.O., Delhi-02.

… Managements/respondents

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh.Vijay Pal, Ld. AR.

For Management/ Respondent:

Sh. Saurav Rastogi, Ld. AR.

5852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Award

04.07.2025

The present petition has been filed under section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Herein after referred as

‗the Act‘). The claimant filed his claim statement, alleging that his services had been terminated illegally by the

management in violation of section 25F of the Act, and sought reinstatement with full back wages and other

consequential benefits.

The claimant asserted that he had been employed as a driver with the management since 23.09.2009, and his last

drawn salary was Rs. 11,000/- per month. He maintained that there was never any complaint regarding his work,

conduct, or behavior, and that he never gave the management any cause for dissatisfaction. He further stated that he

was not provided with statutory benefits such as increment, promotion, leave book, earned leave (E.L.), casual leave

(C.L.), bonus, overtime, etc. On 13.06.2014, the claimant was allegedly called to the office of Sh. Abdhesh

Kumar Pandit, Administrative Officer, where he was pressured to sign a resignation letter without any justification.

Subsequently,

on

20.06.2014,

he sent

a

legal notice

demanding the

aforementioned benefits,

but the

management neither responded nor complied. On 30.06.2014, when he again demanded these legal benefits, the

management, according to the claimant, became annoyed and terminated his services.

In response, the management filed a written statement, raising preliminary objections that the claim was false,

frivolous, and devoid of any cause of action. The management alleged that the claimant had not approached the

court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts. It was denied that the claimant‘s services had been

terminated; rather, the management contended that the claimant‘s appointment was on a contractual basis,

initially for a period of three months or until the project‘s completion, whichever was earlier. The management

asserted that the claimant worked on various projects only after extensions were granted to his appointment. It was

further claimed that the claimant was paid one month‘s salary before being relieved, and his services were

discontinued vide letter dated 05.06.2014, bearing reference no. BECIL/HR/2014-15/Discontinuation. On merits, the

management denied the claimant‘s assertions regarding continuous employment and denial of statutory benefits,

and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the claim.

Rejoinder had been filed by the claimant where he denied the averment made by the management in its written

statement and affirmed the averments in his claim statement.

After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether the workman has worked more than one year without any breakage? If so, its effect?

2. Whether the workman has been terminated illegally without following the section 25 of I.D. Act? If so, its effect?

3. Whether the appointment of the claimant was regular/permanent in nature? If so, its effect?

4. Whether the claimant has any lien or right to the post he was appointed as per terms of appointment? If so, its

effect?

5. To what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?

It is also important to mention that during the course of cross-examination, the claimant unfortunately passed

away due to an accident. His widow was substituted as his legal heir who tendered her affidavit in evidence.

Initially, the deceased claimant had filed his affidavit to support his case, and subsequently, his widow, Smt. Shobha

Devi, filed her own affidavit of evidence in continuation, deposing on the same lines as the claim statement. She

relied upon the following documents:

Original death certificate of the claimant. (Ex.WW2/2).

Appointment letter of her deceased husband issued by B.E.C.I.L. (Ex. WW1/A).

Identity card of her deceased husband of the year 2010, 2013 and 2014. (Ex. WW1/B ,colly).

Her husband was having a salary account vide A/c no. 0453/SB/01/038078 in Corporation Bank, Branch-453,

Noida B-1 Sector, in which the salary of her deceased husband was transferred by the management. Passbook of

the said account from the year 2009 to 2014 is Ex. WW1/C.

A copy of the E.S.I. card issued by the management in the name of the deceased claimant Sh. Govind Singh

Dhami. (Ex. WW1/D).

A copy of the EPF contribution statement of her deceased husband from the year 2009 to 2014. (Ex. WW1/E,

colly).

She reiterated the facts stated in the claim statement, specifically that the her husband‘s services were terminated

illegally.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5853

In rebuttal, the management examined one witness, Sh. Mahesh Chand, who relied on the following

documents:

The authorization letter issued to him by the management, authorizing him to appear, depose, give affidavits,

statements, and to sign, verify any pleadings in court and to give evidence. (Ex. MW1/1).

Termination letter of the claimant issued by the management. (Ex. MW1/2).

Payment of salary for the month of June, 2014 to the claimant. (Ex. MW1/3).

Appointment letter of the claimant dated 22.09.2009 bearing no. BECIL/Pers-IG/2009, is already exhibited as

(Ex. WW1/A.)

Contract renewal up to 31.08.2013, already exhibited as (Ex. WW1/M1).

The claimant‘s entire case rests on the premise that he continuously served the management from 23.09.2009 till

30.06.2014 and his services were terminated illegally. The claimant didn‘t dispute the appointment letter, while the

management maintained that the claimant‘s services could be discontinued at any time as per terms of said letter.

The management asserted that the claimant‘s services were discontinued by letter dated 05.06.2024, and that he was

asked to collect the dues, including one month‘s pay.

Certain facts have already been admitted by the management that the claimant joined his duty on 23.09.2009,

and was being provided the ESI benefits with the management, and worked continuously for five years, till his

services were discontinued on 30.06.2014. The management also admitted that notice of discontinuation was given

in writing on 05.06.2014.

The management relied upon the judgment passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Moti Chand vs.

The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India CWP 24911/2014 dated 02.08.2018, 2018 LLR 1077, where it

was held that management has discretion to terminate the service of a workman employed on contract basis for a

fixed term for any period or on expiry of any extended period. The management also cited a judgment of Hon‘ble

Supreme Court of India in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Ors. vs. The state of Maharashtra & Ors.,

Appeal (C)no. 2543/2023, dated 12.09.2023, 2023 Livelaw (SC)801 where it was held that continuous service

does not create a legal right to absorption.

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:

[(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 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 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 management invoked clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, stating that the claimant‘s service was

dispensed with due to non-renewal of the contract or under a stipulation in the contract. The appointment letter

(Ex. WW1/A) and termination letter (Ex. MW1/2) issued to the claimant is required to be pasted herein:

5854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The appointment letter (Ex. WW1/A) shows that the claimant was appointed as a motor driver for the

period 23.09.2009 to 31.12.2009, at a fixed salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. It was stipulated in the letter that the

claimant‘s services can be terminated at any time without any notice. It was also mentioned that the contract can

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5855

also be terminated in case the project for which the claimant was engaged, was terminated by the authorities or

completed. Termination letter (Ex. MW1/2) states that the claimant‘s services were discontinued w.e.f. 30.06.2014

as the project against which the claimant had been appointed was over. The claimant‘s contract renewal upto

31.08.2013 is already on record (Ex. WW1/M1. However, the management didn‘t place any renewal for the period

thereafter, indicating that the claimant‘s services were extended or renewed beyond that date.

Under industrial law, the key condition is that a workman must have discharged continuous service for a

minimum period of one year. There is no dispute that the claimant is a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the

Act. He was appointed on 23.09.2009 and his services were discontinued on 30.06.2014. Section 25F requires that a

workman be given one month‘s notice or notice pay. In this case, notice was given on 05.06.2024, and services were

discontinued on 30.06.2014, less than one month‘s notice, so the first condition is flouted. Moreover, the claimant

was also not paid retrenchment compensation equivalent to fifteen days‘ average pay for every completed year of

continuous service, violating the second requirement.

The management‘s witness admitted in the present case that the claimant‘s juniors continued to work,

supporting the claimant‘s assertion of illegal termination.

The judgments cited by the management pertain to other scenarios and doesn‘t match with the particulars

of the present case, particularly given the perennial nature of the claimant‘s work as a driver and the fact that his

juniors were retained in violation of section 25F, G and H of the Act.

In the light of the above discussion in hand, it is held that the claimant worked continuously for more than

one year, and his services were terminated illegally without compliance with section 25F of the Act. Issue no. 3 and

regarding the regular or permanent nature of the appointment and lien on the post, are not relevant to the present

facts of the claimant.

Now, the question that arises is what relief the claimant is entitled to. Since the claimant passed away, and

his widow Smt. Shobha Devi, father Sh. Sado Singh, and children Sh. Bharat Singh and Ms. Anjali were substituted

as his legal heirs, reinstatement is no longer possible in the present case.

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

considered an appropriate relief. Hence, the management of B.E.C.I.L. is hereby directed to pay a compensation of

Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) to the legal heir of the claimant, particularly to Smt. Shobha Devi

(widow of the deceased 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 04.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1531.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार कुलसजचव, भारतीय प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान रुड़की, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ऄजनल कुमार, रुड़की

के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड

सं्‍या- 49/2012) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/188-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1531.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Registrar, Indian Institue of Technology Roorkee and Sh. Anil Kumar, Roorkee, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/188-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

5856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ID No.49/2012

Sh. Anil Kumar,(LR ofLate Sh. Arvind Kumar)vs. I.I.T. Roorkee

Sh. Anil Kumar,

S/o Late Arvind Kumar

R/o:- 663, Ganeshpur

PO:-Ganeshpur

Roorkee

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

The Registrar,

IIT Roorkee,

Roorkee (UK)

… Management/respondent

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

NitinRana and Sh. Harvindar Singh, Ld. ARs.

For Management/ Respondent:

Sh. Ravi Mishra, Ld. AR.

Award

04.06.2025

Appropriate government vide its letter dated 24.01.2012 sent a reference to this tribunal for adjudication

in the following words:

‗Whether action of management of IIT Roorkee of not accepting the withdrawl application of

ShriArvind Kumar S/o Late Mahender Singh, Refrigeration Supervisor after acceptance of VRS is

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?‘

Upon receiving the reference, notices were issued to both parties. Subsequently, the claimant, Sh. Arvind Kumar,

appeared and filed his claim statement, wherein he made the following submissions:

He was appointed as an A.C. Operator by the management on 06.06.1984 and was promoted to the post of

Refrigeration Supervisor on 22.05.2000.

He did his duty honestly and diligently. However, due to the mention tension, economic and institutional non-

cooperation,he submitted an application for his Voluntary Retirement from Service (V.R.S.) on 07.10.2010

without any consultation from his family and colleagues.

His V.R.S. was accepted by the management on 19.10.2010.

Subsequently, he moved an application seeking withdrawal of his V.R.S. application on 10.11.2010, but the

management didn‘t take any action on his application.

Being aggrieved, he lodged a complaint before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun, but the

management neither participated in the proceedings before the A.L.C. nor provided any valid justification for

rejecting his withdrawal request.

Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to this tribunal for adjudication.

In response, the management appeared and filed its written statement. It is the stand of the management

that the claimant‘s V.R.S. request was accepted by the management, considering the fact that the claimant was

suffering from psychosis for a long period and he was admitted in a hospital at the Himalayan Institute Hospital

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5857

Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun (Uttarakhand) for his treatment. Nearly after one month of acceptance of his

V.R.S. application, the claimant wrote a letter dated 10.11.2010 to the management wherein he called upon the

management to cancel his V.R.S.‘s order. The management had considered the claimant‘s request and the reasons

given therein. However, the management didn‘t find any merit in his request and therefore, vide letter dated

22.11.2010, informed the claimant that his request to cancel his VRS was not acceptable to the management as per

rules. Thereafter, the management issued a pension Payment Order (PPO) in favor of the claimant vide letter dated

06.12.2010. The claimant also availed substantial pension benefits, and he was paid the payment and gratuity

commutation, General Provident Fund and Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) through cheques after the claimant

submitted the required ‗No Dues Certificate‘. Lastly, the management prayed for dismissal of the claim.

The claimant didn‘t file any rejoinder to the management‘s written statement.

From pleadings of the parties, this tribunal didn‘t find any requirement of framing additional issues other

than the reference itself.

The claimant in his affidavit of evidence reiterated the facts as mentioned in the claim statement regarding

acceptance of his V.R.S. application and subsequent withdrawal of the application. He also added one more ground

in his affidavit that he was harassed mentally by the administration and for this he wrote a letter seeking V.R.S. He

admitted all these facts in his cross-examination. He admitted that Ex. WW1/M1 is a letter written to him by the

management requesting V.R.S. He also admitted that on 19.10.2010, he received a communication related to his

voluntary retirement from the Assistant Registrar, IIT Roorkee, accepting his resignation w.e.f. 19.10.2010 (Ex.

WW1/M2). Voluntarily, he made a statement that he took his letter dated 07.10.2010 to Deputy Director

personally who told him that his request for voluntary retirement could not be entertained. No dues certificate was

submitted by him on 03.11.2010, after he was paid the payment of Gratuity and commutation, General Provident

Fund and Group Insurance Scheme (GIS) and all the other benefits. Merely after one month of his acceptance of

V.R.S. application, he wrote a letter to the management calling him to cancel his V.R.S. order (Ex. WW1/M3).

(Ex. WW1/M4) is a letter issued to the claimant declining his request for cancellation of his voluntary retirement.

It is also a matter of fact that the claimant expired in between, and his son Sh. Anil was substituted. Later,

his application seeking liberty to cross-examine the management‘s witness was dismissed by this tribunal

considering that all the material facts were admitted by the claimant, and therefore, no useful purpose would be

served in calling the management‘s witness again whose cross-examination was marked as NIL.

I have heard the arguments presented by both parties. The entire case of the claimant rests on the premise

that the management acted with undue haste in accepting his request for voluntary retirement, while the usual

period is three months. It is argued by the claimant that within three months, he reconsidered his decision and

submitted an application for withdrawal of his V.R.S. application which was rejected. In support of his claim, he

relied upon the judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India inDirector General ESIC &Anr.

Vs. PuroshottamMalani (Civil Appeal no. 4611 of 2008).

Ex. WW1/M1 is the application submitted by the claimant to the management, seeking voluntary

retirement. The said application was written in Hindi, and is pasted below for reference:

5858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the application, the claimant stated that he was suffering from psychosis, and he had to take the

medicines which contained a large amount of alcohol. Consequent thereto, his colleagues used to doubt him as an

alcoholic, wherever he was transferred. As such, he made up his mind for taking his V.R.S. He also mentioned that

he would be obliged if he was relieved forthwith.

Ex. WW1/M2 is an office memorandum issued by the management relieving the claimant from service

w.e.f. 19.10.2010. The same is pasted below for reference:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5859

The case of the claimant stands on the premise that, at least three months‘ time should have been

grantedbefore accepting his V.R.S. application, as per rules. However, his application was accepted within 12 to

13 days. Subsequently, his request for withdrawal of his V.R.S. application was also rejected.

The claimant‘s application seeking V.R.S. and the subsequent memorandum of accepting the same,

clearly denotes that it was the claimant who had been suffering from various diseases and he himself stated that the

medicines he was taking contained a large amount of alcohol. Considering his request, the management relieved

him from service. Therefore, the claimant‘s assertion that the management accepted his request for

V.R.S. promptly without assigning any reasonis not tenable.

The claimant was relieved from duty from 19.10.2010, thus seizing the employee-employer relationship.

The management rightly didn‘t consider his request for withdrawal of his V.R.S. application, because employee-

employer relationship had already seized by then. It is also on record that the claimant accepted all the benefits

accrued in his favor after taking the retirement and submitted a No Dues Certificate to the management before

submitting his request for withdrawal of his V.R.S. application, which shows that he decided to file his application

for withdrawal of his V.R.S. request possibly on someone‘s advice.

In view of the above discussion, the reference is answered against the claimant and in favor of the

management. Accordingly, the claim of the claimant stands dismissed. A copy of this award be sent to the

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

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated 04.06.2025

5860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1532.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार स्ट्वामी, मेससड हर्मषत एंटरप्राआजेज; प्रबंध जनदेिक, मेससड गायत्री जसक्योररटी सर्मवसेज, हजदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोजकों और ऄध्यक्ष, केंरीय सरकार एवं सावडजजनक क्षेत्र संजवदा अईटसोर्ससग कमडचारी महासंघ, हजदराबाद के

बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय हजदराबाद ृंचाट (संदभड

सं्‍या- 2/2025) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के

साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/190-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

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

to The proprietor, M/s Harshit Enterprises; The Managing Director, M/s Gayatri Security Services,

Hyderabad and The President, Central Govt. & Public Sector Contract Outsourcing Employees Federation,

Hyderabad, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/190-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 2nd day of July, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 2/2025

Between:

The President,

Central Govt. & Public Sector Contract

Outsourcing Employees Federation,

H.No. 1-7-144, Golkonda X Road,

Mushirabad, Hyderabad-500020.

..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The proprietor,

M/s Harshit Enterprises,

H.No. 8-40/3/1/4, Street No. 3,

Mc Devels colony, New Hemanagar,

Boduppal, Mechal Malkajgiri-500039.

2. The Managing Director,

M/s Gayatri Security Services,

Plot No. 47, Lakshmi Nagar,

Picket Secunderabad, Hyderabad-500026.

…..Respondent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5861

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 8/40/2024-B1 dated 20.12.2024 referred

the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of M/s Gayatri Security Services & M/s Harshit Enterprises, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of management of M/s Harshit Enterprises, contractor of Income Tax Department,

Hyderabad in dismissing the services of 1. B. Shakuntala, 2. Pramila Bhai, 3. Katoon Begum, 4. K.Kumari, 5.

Razai Begum, 6. M. Sumalatha, 7. Kurra Lakshmi, 8. Mamula Begum is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workmen are entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 2/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice and

sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-

claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 2nd day of

July, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1533.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

] असनसोल ds iapkV (

04/2023)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/116/2022-अइअर (सी. एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

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

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

M/s. ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/08/2025.

[No. L-22012/116/2022-IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

5862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 04 OF 2023

PARTIES: Rajdeep Mukherjee

Vs.

Management of Satgram Incline of ECL and Another

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

03.07.2024

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-22012/116/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 04.01.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute

between the employer, that is the Management of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDUL

―Whether the demand raised by Union i.e. Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol to the management of

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to regularize as Survey Mazdoor to Shri Rajdeep Mukherjee, General Mazdoor,

UM No. 193321, of Satgram Incline under Satgram Area of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is proper, legal

and justified? If yes, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? ‖

1.

On receiving Order No. L-22012/116/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 04.01.2023 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 04 of 2023 was registered on

05.01.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to

appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of

witnesses.

2.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative appeared for Rajdeep Mukherjee, the aggrieved workman. Case

is fixed up today for the third time for evidence of workman witness. On repeated calls at 01.30 p.m., the workman

is not found available. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is

present.

3.

After registration of the case, Notice under registered post was issued to the parties. Koyala Mazdoor

Congress filed a written statement on 22.03.2023 on behalf of the workman through Mr. H. L. Soni, Assistant

General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol. The Agent, Satgram (R) Colliery filed written statement

on 28.4.2023. Case was thereafter fixed for evidence of workman witness on 30.08.2023, 13.02.2024 and for ends

of justice case is fixed up today for appearance and evidence of workman witness, in default the case is to be

disposed of.

4.

The aggrieved workman has remained absent on three consecutive dates fixed for evidence. The conduct

of the workman indicates that he is not inclined to proceed with this case. Accordingly, the matter cannot be kept

pending without any reasonable cause. The Industrial Dispute is therefore dismissed for default. Let a No Dispute

Award be drawn up. Let the matter be communicated to Ministry for notification.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in the above Reference case. Let copies of the Award in duplicate

be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5863

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1534.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

] असनसोल ds iapkV (

18/2023)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/21/2023-अइअर (सी. एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

M/s. ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/08/2025 .

[No. L-22012/21/2023-IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, 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. 18 OF 2023

PARTIES: Kartick Bhuia

(Son of Late Basdeo Bhuia)

Vs

Management of Bansra Colliery, Kunustoria Area, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

24/06/2025

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under 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-20012/21/2023-IR(CM-II) dated

14/03/2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Bansra

Colliery, Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the Management of Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. in regretting the claim for employment of Shri Kartick Bhuia, S/o Late Basdeo Bhuia, Ex-

Dresser, U.M. No. 451057 of Bansra Colliery of M/s. ECL is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the dependent son of the aforesaid deceased workman is entitled?‖

1.

On receiving Order No. L-20012/21/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 14/03/2023 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 18 of 2023 was registered on

5864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17/03/2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to

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

2.

Mr. R. K. Tripahi, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on 24/01/2024 on

behalf of the dependent son of Late Basdeo Bhuia, deceased employee. Fact of the case as disclosed in the written

statement of the union is that, Basdeo Bhuia was a permanent employee of ECL and was posted as Underground

Dresserbearing U. M. No. 451057 at Bansra Colliery under Kunustoria Area. He died in harness on 24/05/2010.

Kartick Bhuia, son of the deceased was nominated by his family members and other dependents of the deceased for

providing compassionate employment against death of his father. Kartick Bhuia submitted his application for

employment along with relevant documents before the colliery management within one year from death of his

father. After several correspondences with the management, a letter No. ECL/B/Per/15-16/325 dated 07/05/2015

was issued by the Agent, Bansra Colliery addressed to Kartick Bhuia seeking his point wise reply to the letter.

Dependent son submitted point wise reply to the letter but till date management has not responded to his claim for

employment. Instant Industrial Dispute has been raised seeking a direction to the management of Bansra Colliery,

ECL to consider the claim for employment of Kartick Bhuia.

3.

Management contested the Industrial Dispute by filing written statement on 14/06/2023. Gist of the

management‘s case is that Basdeo Bhuia was an employee of ECL. His last working day was 20/10/2008 and after

his unauthorized absence he expired on 24/05/2010. Almost after four years of death of the employee, one Kartick

Majhi claimed for employment on compassionate ground as dependent son of the deceased employee by submitting

an application on 18/02/2014. His application was incomplete. Management of Bansra Colliery issued several letters

to Kartick Bhuiya for submitting his documents. Later on, documents were filed in irregular manner and the

requirements were not fulfilled. Dependent did not reply to the letters of management in time for which his claim

was not processed. Due to inordinate delay in submitting claim for compassionate employment, file was not

processed by the management. After lapse of seven to eight years, in the year 2021, the dependent son raised an

Industrial Dispute giving rise to the present case. According to the management, in the case of Nemat Kumar

Vs. CIL and Ors, Hon‘ble Calcutta High Court has noted that ―an application for appointment on compassionate

ground cannot be pursued more than five years after death of the concerned employee, since the petitioner has been

able to survive without an appointment for more than ten years now..‖ Management has prayed before the Tribunal

that the case is liable to be dismissed as there was inordinate delay on the part of the claimant.

4.

Kartick Bhuia has been examined as Workman Witness-I. He filed an affidavit-in-chief in support of his

case wherein he has stated that his father died on 24/05/2010 and he was nominated by other family members for

employment. He submitted all requisite documents before the management within one year. Kartick Bhuia claimed

to have resubmitted all documents along with an application dated 18/02/2014 for the purpose of getting

employment. He also visited office of the Agent, Bansra Colliery and received a letter dated 07/05/2015 seeking

point wise reply. Dependent son claims to have submitted point wise reply to such letter. He has averred that till date

his payer for employment has not been processed by the colliery management. During his examination, witness

produced the following documents:-

(i)

Copy of an application dated 29/10/2010 informing the company about death of his father is produced as

Exhibit W-1

(ii)

Copy of his attestation form in two sheets submitted before the company is collectively produced as Exhibit

W-2

(iii)

Copy of an application dated 17/02/2014 submitted before the company along with documents is produced

as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Copy of letter dated 06/10.05.2014 issued by the management regarding providing employment to the

dependent of Basdeo Bhuia is produced as Exhibit W-4.

(v)

Copies of his two letters issued on 02/04/2015 and 12/04/2015 in response to Agent‘s letter dated

10/05/2014 are produced as Exhibits W-5 and W-6 respectively.

Witness deposed that he was never referred before the screening committee or medical examination by the

management and no regret letter has been issued to him.

In cross-examination, witness deposed that his mother predeceased his father, in the year 2007. He stated that

Gobind Bhuia, Sarju Bhuia and Gopi Bhuia are his brothers and that Babiya Bhuia is his sister. It transpires from

evidence of workman witness-I that he submitted an application for employment for the first time on 17/02/2014 and

the company issued a letter to him on 10/05/2014 asking for submission of certain documents and to rectify

discrepancies. Witness claims to have submitted all documents. It is denied by the workman witness that due to

delay in submitting such application, management was unable to provide employment to him.

5.

Mr. Pratik V Sathe, Asst. Manager (Pers) of Basnra Colliery was examined as Management Witness-I in

favour of the management of ECL. Witness filed an affidavit-in-chief wherein he has stated that Basdeo Bhuiya

expired on 24/05/2010 and after four years of his death, one Kartick Majhi claimed for employment on

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5865

compassionate ground by submitting his application on 18/02/2014. According to the witness, the application was

incomplete. Management issued several letters to Kartick Bhuiya for filing documents but all requirements were not

fulfilled. According to the management, dependent did not submit reply to the letters of the management in time. It

is claimed that there was inordinate delay in submitting application. Further case of the management as disclosed is

that after a gap of seven to eight years, in the year 2021, an Industrial Dispute was raised which gave rise to the

present case as Industrial Dispute ended in Failure of Conciliation. Management contended that the claim for

employment was rightly considered and it might be held that management was justified in not providing

employment to the dependent of the deceased employee. In course of adducing evidence Management Witness

produced the following documents in support of his case:-

(i) Copy of an application submitted by Kartick Bhuiya dated 29/10/2010 is produced as Exhibit M-1

(ii) Copy of a letter dated 06/10.05.2014 issued by the Agent, Bansra Colliery addressed to Kartick Bhuiya is

produced as Exhibit M-2.

(iii) Copy of an application dated 17/02/2014 submitted by Kartick Bhuia prior to issuance of letter dated

06/10.05.2014 is produced as Exhibit M-3.

(iv) Copy of a letter dated 22/24.12.2014 issued by the Agent, Bansra Colliery addressed to Kartick Bhuiya for

submitting documents specified in his earlier letter dated 10/05/2014 is produced as Exhibit M-4.

(v) Copy of a letter dated 06/07.05.2015 issued by the Agent, Bansra Colliery addressed to Kartik Bhuiya for

submitting pointwise reply in respect of letter dated 06/10.05.2014 is produced as Exhibit M-5.

Witness deposed that the management did not communicate anything to the dependent of the deceased after

issuance of letter dated 06.05.2014. On 06/07.05.2015 management issued a letter addressed to Kartik Bhuiya

informing that no affidavit relating to difference in name and surname was attached with his earlier letter and he was

requested to submit point wise reply. In the affidavit-in-chief management witness stated that prayer of the

dependent employee was not turned down and the management did not issue any letter informing that his claim for

employment would not be considered. In course of cross-examination witness deposed that the management did not

issue any letter to the dependents of the deceased employee to submit any document or letter for processing the

claim of employment. It is admitted that on 12/04/2015, Kartick Bhuia submitted an application to the Agent,

Bansra Colliery wherein he submitted point wise reply to the letter dated 10/05/2014. Management Witness also

deposed that affidavit filed by the dependent was not in order as they found that there was some difference, specially

a difference in the name and surname of Kartick Bhuia. Witness categorically stated that difference was in spelling

of the name and surname of Kartick Bhuia and the management did not issue any regret letter to the dependent. On

being questioned on behalf of the dependent, Management Witness admitted that there can be difference in the

spelling in proper noun. On traversing the testimony of MW-I, I find that management did not call Kartick Bhuia for

his screening to find out his identity. It is stated that as per service record name of the dependent son was spelt as

‗Kartik Bhuiya‘ but in his application for employment he spelt his name as ‗Kartick Bhuia‘. Witness admitted that in

the service record name and surname of the dependent son of Basdeo Bhuia was written as ‗Kartik Bhuiya‘ by the

employees of the management and neither by Basdeo Bhuia nor by Kartick Bhuia himself.

6.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar argued that after death of Basdeo Bhuia on 24/05/2010 his dependent son submitted

death information before the Manager, Bansra Colliery on 29/10/2010 (Exhibit W-1). A prayer for employment was

made by Kartick Bhuia by submitting his attestation form (Exhibit W-2) and an application for employment dated

17/02/2014 (Exhibit W-3). In reply Agent, Bansra Colliery issued a letter dated 06/10.05.2014 addressed to Kartick

Bhuiya (Exhibit W-4) asking him to rectify certain discrepancies like surname and designation of Basdeo Bhuia and

for submission of No Objection Certificate from other dependents, application of information of death, dependency

certificate, attestation from in four copies in original and that name of the applicant in Indemnity Bond and affidavit

were found wrongly mentioned and were required to be corrected. Union representative argued that Kartick Bhuiya

in letter dated 02/04/2015 (Exhibit W-5) requested the Agent, Bansra Colliery to return the employment file

containing originals for the purpose of clarifying irregularities as mentioned in letter dated 10/05/2014. Thereafter

on 12/04/2015, Kartik Bhuia submitted point wise reply to the letter dated 10/05/2014. It is argued that dependent

son is entitled to get employment under the clause 9.3.0 of NCWA. Management has neither regretted the prayer for

employment nor did they communicate to him the reasons for not considering him for employment. It is argued that

Management has taken plea in the written statement that due to discrepancies in the spelling of name and surname of

the dependent son between the service record of his father and the application submitted by him, management was

unable to consider the case. It is argued that management should be directed to consider the pending application of

Kartick Bhuia for providing him employment without further delay.

7.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management refuting the claim of employment to the dependent

argued that there was difference in spelling in the name and surname of the dependent appearing in his application

for employment and that in service record of his father, lying with the company.

5866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8.

I have considered the arguments advanced in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence

adduced by parties. Undisputedly, Kartick Bhuia submitted his application and attestation form for the purpose of

getting employment against the death of his father. From the Relationship certificate issued by the Member of

Legislative Assembly (West Bengal) I find that Kartik Bhuia has been described as the son of Late Basdeo Bhuia. In

the attestation form for employment, name of the dependent son has been spelt as Kartick Bhuia (Exhibit W-2).

Management has filed the service record of Basdeo Bhuia wherefrom it appears that name of Kartick Bhuia has been

spelt as ‗Kartik Bhuiya‘. Management Witness in cross-examination admitted that name and surname of Kartick

Bhuia was filled up by the employees of the management and neither by Basdeo Bhuia nor by Kartik Bhuiya

himself. On the basis of such evidence, it is explicitly clear that neither the dependent son nor his father entered his

name in the service record. Therefore, dependent of the workman if otherwise eligible for employment as the

dependent son under the provision of clause 9.4.0 (iv) of NCWA, there is no justification on the part of the

management of ECL in keeping the matter pending and frustrating the claim of dependent son without

communicating anything to him. Discrepancies regarding name and surname would have been tenable if such name

and surname was totally different. In the present case, Management of ECL has taken a very feeble plea that there

was difference in spelling in name and surname of the dependent son, being fully aware that there can be difference

in spelling in proper noun and for such reason management cannot delay the process of screening or holding medical

examination of the dependent son.

9.

In the case of Smt. Putul Rabidas Vs. Eastern Coalfields Limited and Others [2017 Volume 6 West

Bengal Law Reporter (Cal) 255], the special bench held that since NCWA is a settlement arrived at between the

parties after protracted deliberations, the same is binding on the parties governed thereby in view of section 18 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no departure from the assurance in NCWA is warranted and that, various terms of the

NCWA have to be read and the meaning of the words used herein gathered from the context. It therefore appears

that a settlement under section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has binding effect on the parties thereto

under section 18(3) of the Act of 1947. NCWA has made provisions for compassionate appointment for the

dependents of the deceased employee. Nature of employment is an exception to the general rule of merit-based

recruitment under the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it is provided to the family of deceased in order to

tide over financial penury.

10.

In the case under consideration, management of ECL has to consider that the difference in spelling in name

and surname of the dependent son, due to entries in service record of his father and his application for employment

cannot serve as impediment in providing employment to a dependent son of deceased as per provisions of NCWA.

Management is therefore directed to arrange for screening and medical examination of Kartick Bhuia for the

purpose of considering his prayer for employment. It is to be borne in mind that age of the dependent son has to be

reckoned as on the date of submitting his application for employment. Under such facts and circumstances the

Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of ECL.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Bansra Colliery, ECL. Management is

directed to complete necessary procedures for providing employment to Kartick Bhuia commensurating with his

skill and qualification. The entire procedure has to be completed within two months from the date of communication

of the Award. In the event of delay on the part of management to comply the order, the management shall be liable

to pay a compensation equivalent to the monthly pay of an Underground Loader every month till completion of the

process. Let an Award be drawn up in light of my above discussion. Let copies of Award be communicated to the

Ministry for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Office

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1535.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

] असनसोल ds iapkV (

37/2012)

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

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk

[सं. एल-22012/112/2012-अइअर (सी. एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5867

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

M/s. ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/08/2025 .

[No. L-22012/116/2022-IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, 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. 37 OF 2012

PARTIES: Budhu Majhi

Vs

Management of Jambad Colliery, Kajora Area, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

23/06/2025

AWA D

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-22012/112/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 26/10/2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute

between the employer, that is the Management of Jambad Colliery, Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and

their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Jamabad Colliery under Kajora Area of M/s. Eastern

Coalfields Limited in dismissing Shri Budhu Majhi, U. G. Loader, from service w.e.f. 08.02.1997 is legal

and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?‖

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/112/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 26/10/2012 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 37 of 2012 was registered on

14/11/2012 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.

2. Budhu Majhi, the dismissed workman filed his written statement on 08/05/2013 through Mr. Rakesh Kumar,

the then General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress. Management filed written statement on 04/07/2016. In

gist, fact of the workman‘s case is that Budhu Majhi was employed at Jambad Colliery, Kajora Area of ECL. He

was unauthorizedly absent from duty. It is contended that the workman was posted as Underground Loader which

is a hazardous job and he was unable to adjust himself and frequently fell ill. Workman was unable to attend duty

due to his illness. He requested the management of the colliery to allow him to join his previous job but the

management issued a charge sheet against him and after holding enquiry, dismissed him from service of the

company. It is the case of workman that a Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/05/2007 was executed between the

management and representatives of the unions wherein it was decided that management would consider the case of

absentees if they were less than forty two years of age and their period of absence was less than nine months.

Contention of the workman is that punishment awarded to him is disproportionate to his alleged misconduct. Order

of dismissal is illegal, unjust and the punishment is extreme which can be avoided. It is prayed that the dismissed

workman may be reinstated in his service and back wages may be paid to him.

5868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. Management contested the Industrial Dispute by filing written statement, wherein it is stated that workman

was charge sheeted by the management for his unauthorized absence from duty which is a misconduct under the

provision of standing order applicable to parties. It is further stated that reply of the workman was found to be

totally unsatisfactory and a departmental enquiry was held in respect of charge sheet. Enquiry Officer was

appointed by the appointing authority and the workman remained absent for continuous period in unauthorized

manner causing loss to the management in the matter of production of coal. It is urged that management rightly

dismissed the workman from service after holding domestic enquiry by the Enquiry Officer and all opportunities

were given to him to defend his case. It is claimed that management followed the principle of Natural Justice while

holding enquiry proceeding and charge of misconduct was fully established against him. It is urged that the

workman intentionally remained absent. Management denied that punishment of dismissal awarded against the

workman is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. It is further claimed that enquiry proceeding is fair and

workman had no right to challenge the enquiry proceeding.

4. Budhu Majhi, the dismissed workman was examined as Workman Witness-I. He filed his affidavit-in-chief in

support of his case. Workman in his affidavit reiterated his case disclosed in the written statement. He claimed that

his absence was not intentional and he was compelled to remain absent due to illness, which was beyond his

control. In his evidence workman stated that he did not remember the period of his unauthorized absence and

stated that he was dismissed for remaining away from duty for one and a half months. During his examination,

witness produced copy of a mercy petition submitted before the company praying for his reinstatement in service.

Copy of mercy petition is marked as Exhibit W-1. During cross-examination, witness deposed that he was under

medical treatment of Dr. Pal at Haripur for one month. Witness failed to produce medical prescription issued by

the Doctor. He denied the suggestion that he was a chronic absentee and deposed that he did not remember if any

charge sheet, Notice of Enquiry were issued or departmental proceeding was initiated by the company in his name.

5. Management examined Mr. Ramjee Tripathi as Management Witness-I. He filed an affidavit-in-chief stating

that workman was working as Trammer at Jambad Colliery and remained absent from duty from 29/04/1995

without taking any leave from the appropriate authority or without any information. A charge sheet dated

08/04/1996 was issued by Dy. CME/Agent, Jambad Colliery which was sent to the workman under registered post

with AD and a copy of charge sheet was also displayed on the Notice Board of the company. It further transpires

from the affidavit that the workman failed to submit any satisfactory reply and two separate Notices of Enquiry

dated 01/06/1996 and 02/11/1996 were sent to Budhu Majhi under registered post and a copy of such Notice was

displayed on the Notice Board of the company. Witness disclosed that Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the

enquiry proceeding submitted his report and the charge of misconduct was proved. Agent, Jambad Colliery

initiated a Note Sheet dated 21/01/1997 and forwarded the same to the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager being the

appropriate authority. Disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal against the workman on 05/08.02.1997.

In course of examination, witness produced the following documents:-

(i)

Copy of Charge Sheet dated 08/04/1996 is produced as Exhibit M-1

(ii)

Copies of Notice of Enquiry sent to Budhu Majhi on 01/06/1996 and 02/11/1996 are produced as Exhibits

M-2 and M-3 respectively.

(iii)

Copy of Enquiry proceeding in four pages is collectively produced as Exhibit M-4.

(iv)

Copy of Enquiry report submitted by Mr. R. K. Roy, the Enquiry Officer is produced as Exhibit M-5.

(v)

Copy of Note Sheet dated 21/01/1997 initiated by the Agent, Jambad Colliery is produced as Exhibit M-6.

(vi)

Copy of letter dated 05/08.02.1997 issued by the General Manager, Kajora Area by which Budhu Majhi

was dismissed from service is produced as Exhibit M-7.

Witness stated that no second show cause Notice was issued before dismissal of the workman. In cross-

examination, management witness admitted that there was no charge of habitual absence against the workman and

only charge levelled against him was under clause 17(i)(n) i.e. unauthorized absence from duty. It transpires from

cross-examination of the witness that enquiry proceeding was held ex-parte and copy of enquiry proceeding,

enquiry report and second show cause Notice were not served upon the workman before his dismissal. Witness in

cross-examination stated that he had no knowledge regarding the mercy petition (Exhibit W-1) filed for

reinstatement of the workman in service.

6. Mr. Rakesh Kumar argued that dismissal of the workman is illegal and not tenable as neither charge sheet nor

Notice of Enquiry was served upon the workman and that enquiry proceeding was held ex-parte without providing

opportunity to the workman to defend himself. Mr. Kumar argued that workman was suffering from illness due to

which he was unable to attend duty. It is argued that management did not hold a fair enquiry and order of dismissal

issued is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct disclosed in the charge sheet, as such the workman is entitled

to be reinstated in service and management should pay back wages to him from the date of his dismissal.

7. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management argued that workman did not perform the work diligently

and remained absent for nearly one year from 29/04/1995 till 08/04/1996 in an unauthorized manner and without

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5869

intimation to the management of the employer company. It is argued that charge the sheet was sent to the workman

under registered post at his home address at Jhalakdiha, PO- Tikattol, PS- Bengabad, Dist- Giridih (then Bihar). It

is submitted that workman did not submit any reply to the charge sheet and two Notices of Enquiry were issued to

him dated 01/06/1996 and 02/11/1996 which were again transmitted at his home address under registered post.

Management in support of his argument produced a copy of charge sheet as Exhibit M-1 along with a copy of

postal receipt, Notices of Enquiry as Exhibits M-2 and M-3 along with postal receipt in name of Budhu Majhi

which were sent to his home address. Workman did not participate in the enquiry proceeding held by the Enquiry

Officer and enquiry proceeding in four pages is collectively produced as Exhibit M-4. Enquiry Officer appears to

have recorded statement of Management Representative who established charge against the charged employee.

Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report where he held that Budhu Majhi had no valid reason for his absence

from duty and he neither obtained prior permission nor did he intimate the management about his absence. Enquiry

Officer found that charge levelled against the workman stood proved. Learned advocate argued that Disciplinary

Authority issued order of dismissal against the workman on the basis of materials produced. Order of dismissal is

produced as Exhibit M-7. Learned advocate for the management argued that workman remained absent from duty

without any information and thereby hampered the production process of the company. His conduct was absolutely

unpredictable. Workman had taken plea that he was suffering from illness but he did not state the nature of his

illness and the period of treatment. According to the learned advocate for the management, workman is duty bound

to adduce cogent evidence before the Tribunal to establish that there were sufficient reasons for his absence but he

failed. It is urged that the union cannot seek reinstatement of the workman on a plea that enquiry proceeded was

technically untenable due to non-service of Notice of Enquiry and enquiry proceeding.

8. I have considered arguments advanced by the union and the management, pleading of parties and evidence

adduced. Workman admittedly remained absent for one year. Management produced copy of charge sheet along

with postal receipts showing that charge sheet was transmitted to the workman at his home address. Similarly

Notice of Enquiry along with postal receipts were produced by the management to prove that management made

fair and reasonable attempt to reach the workman before initiating domestic enquiry. Workman did not turn up to

participate in the enquiry. In my considered view, if workman failed to turn up after Notice was sent to him under

registered post at his home address maintained by the employer company, management cannot be held responsible

for holding ex-parte enquiry. During enquiry, workman was found guilty of misconduct. Disciplinary Authority

after considering relevant materials, issued order of dismissal against him. After dismissal of the workman in the

year 1997 he raised an Industrial Dispute through the union after passage of fifteen years. There is no explanation

for delay nor did the union cite reasons for not taking steps earlier.

9. Main contention of the union representative is that enquiry proceeding suffered from illegality due to non-

service of Notice of Enquiry and dismissal of the workman was done on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry and

without issuance of second show cause Notice. Having considered enquiry proceeding and report of the Enquiry

Officer, I do not find any illegality in the proceeding as reasonable opportunities were given to the workman to

appear and contest the charge. In the instant case workman has not denied charge of unauthorized absence for one

year. His case is that he was absent due to his illness which was beyond his control. Workman may not have

represented his case before the Enquiry Officer but even before the Tribunal, workman has not produced a single

document relating to his illness and medical treatment during the period of absence. There is no whisper regarding

the nature of illness he was suffering from during the period of his absence. Therefore, I am unable to accept the

plea of the workman that his inability to attend duty of the employer company was due to his illness. Workman has

a reciprocal responsibility towards the management and he failed to exhibit such responsibility by remaining

absent for a long period without intimation or authorization. Non issuance of second show cause Notice to the

charged employee in this case appears to be a procedural lapse and does not prejudice the workman as he failed to

explain the reason of long absence from his place of work.

10.

It is pertinent to refer to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka

and Another Vs. Ravi Kumar [2009 (122) FLR 737 (S.C.)] where it was held that long delay in seeking

reference of dispute rendered the reference stale and it should be rejected. In the present case reference has been

made after long fifteen years from dismissal and the same appears to be a stale one and is fit to be rejected.

Conduct of the workman is unacceptable and I hold that he is not entitled to any relief. Industrial Dispute is

therefore dismissed on contest.

Hence,

ORDERED

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

Let copies of Award be communicated to the Ministry for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

5870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1536.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

] असनसोल

ds iapkV (

02/2020) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/102/2019-अइअर (सी. एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

M/s. ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/08/2025

[No. L-22012/102/2019-IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, 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. 02 OF 2020

PARTIES:

1. Shiuly Bauri (dependent daughter of Late Khudiram Bauri),

2. Sakuntala Bauri (dependent wife of Late Khudiram Bauri).

Vs.

Management of Pandaveswar Area, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

19.06.2025

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-22012/102/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 14.01.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute

between the employer, that is the Management of Pandaveswar Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman

for

adjudication

by

this

Tribunal.

Thereafter,

a

Corrigendum

was

received

bearing

No. L-22012/102/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 22.06.2023, recasting the Schedule, the same is as follows :

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of management of Pandeveswar Area office of M/s Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. over

denial of employment to the dependent daughter Ms. Shiuli Bouri and denial of payment of monetary

compensation to the wife of Late Khudiram Bouri, Ex-chainman are legal and justified. If not, what relief

the dependent daughter and the wife of deceased workman are entitled to? ‖

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5871

1.

On receiving Order No. L-22012/102/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 14.01.2020 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 20.01.2020 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.

2.

A written statement has been filed by Koyala Mazdoor Congress on 10.11.2021. Management

contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on 09.12.2022. The fact of the case disclosed in

the written statement of the union, in brief, is that Khudiram Bauri was posted as a Chainman at Pandaveswar Area

of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) and was a permanent employee of the company who

died in harness on 10.12.1996 leaving behind his wife and two daughters namely, Shiuly Bauri and Doli Bauri as

dependents. Shakuntala Bauri, wife of Khudiram Bauri applied before the management of the company for

providing employment on compassionate ground under the provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement

(hereinafter referred to as NCWA) and submitted relevant documents. The management did not grant any

employment to the widow on the ground that she had crossed the age for employment. Subsequently, application

claiming employment was submitted by Shiuly Bauri, the dependent daughter of the deceased employee. The

application was filed within reasonable time and the management processed her application for employment. She

appeared before the Screening Committee of the management and on being examined by the Initial Medical

Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as IME Board), Shiuly Bauri was found fit for employment. The Area

management then forwarded the proposal for employment of the dependent daughter to the ECL Headquarters with

recommendation by the General Manager. However, on 27.02.2007, ECL Headquarters regretted the proposal for

employment of unmarried daughter on the ground that she was below 18 years of age on the date of death of the

employee. The dependent daughter requested the management for considering her prayer for employment but the

management did not pay heed. According to the union, management of ECL deliberately did not provide

employment to the wife and daughter of the deceased employee and no monetary compensation was paid to the

female dependents, contrary to the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 of NCWA applicable to the Coal Industries of India.

According to the union the age of Shiuly Bauri recorded in the Service Record of the employee is 18 years on the

date of death of employee and as per her Matriculation Certificate her date of birth is 21.03.1979 and she was 17

years and 9 months on the date of death of her father. Furthermore, according to the guidelines / circular dated

25.07.2003 of Coal India Limited the age of the claimant has to be considered on the date of application for

employment, as such in this case the age of Shiuly Bauri should have been considered as more than 18 years on the

date of her application for employment. The union contended that in the Service Record of Khudiram Bauri the age

of Shiuly Bauri has been recorded as 9 years as on 01.04.1987 and on the basis of age recorded in the Service

Record of the employee the age of Shiuly Bauri was 18 years 8 months on the date of death of her father on

10.12.1996 and she is entitled to employment. Further case of the union is that according the provisions of Clause

9.5.0 of NCWA a dependent of the deceased employee would be provided employment at the age of 18 years if the

dependent was minor and the wife of the deceased employee would be paid monetary compensation till the

dependent child is provided employment. The name of the dependent was to be kept in the Live Roster of the

company till he or she attained the age of 18 years. In this case union has prayed for grant of employment to Shiuly

Bauri, unmarried dependent daughter of Khudiram Bauri and for payment of monetary compensation to his wife

from the date of death of the employee till the daughter is provided employment along with other consequential

benefits.

3.

Management in their written statement admitted that Khudiram Bauri was a permanent employee under

ECL and he expired on 10.12.1996. It is stated that the daughter of the employee applied for employment against

the death of her father. On receipt of the claim for employment the case was referred for her Initial Medical

Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME). In the report of IME, it was observed that Shiuly Bauri was 18 years

of age on 03.10.1997 accordingly her date of birth was notionally fixed as 03.10.1979. The management claimed

that the age of Shiuly Bauri was 17 years 2 months and 7 days on the date of death of her father and therefore

she was a minor and not entitled for employment as per the provisions of NCWA. Management refuted the claim

of the dependent on the ground that at the time of death of the employee the dependent daughter was minor and

was not entitled to any employment as there is no provision in NCWA to provide employment to the female

dependent on attaining 18 years of age. It is urged that the NCWA is a bi-partite agreement signed by the union

and management and no Industrial Dispute can arise on the matter settled through NCWA.

4.

The union examined Shiuly Bauri as Workman Witness No. 1 and filed affidavit-in-chief. In her affidavit-

in-chief she stated that IME Board declared her fit for job and the General Manager of the Area recommended her

for employment but after 11 years on 27.02.2007 the management of ECL Headquarters regretted the prayer for

employment on the plea that she was below 18 years of age on the date of death of her father. It is further averred

that after receiving the regret letter from the management her mother and she, both requested the management for

review of the decision and to provide employment to her or her mother but the management did not consider the

same and did not pay any monetary compensation (MMCC) to her mother under the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 of

NCWA. She stated that the management had the option to maintain her name in the Live Roster of the company

and upon attaining 18 years management could provide employment to her according to the provisions of NCWA.

The witness further stated in her affidavit-in-chief that as per direction issued by the company vide letter no.

5872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ECL/CMD/C-6B/CGM(P&IR)/94/EMPL/1133 dated 28.11.1994 if a dependent is 17 years on the date of death of

the employee, then employment proposal of the dependent can be processed. She claimed that if her age was

considered as per her educational certificate then she was 17 years and 9 months old on the date of death of her

father and her employment proposal should be considered but the management did not take into consideration their

own circular / guidelines deliberately not to provide employment to her. In course of the examination the witness

produced the following documents in support of her case :

(i)

Copy of Death Certificate of Khudiram Bauri dated 24.12.1996 issued by Dr. R. K. Agarwal is

marked as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

Copy of Service Record Excerpt of Khudiram Bauri, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

Copy of Application of Shiuly Bauri dated 22.03.2006 addressed to the Personnel Manager (I/C),

Pandaveswar Area, submitting her documents for her employment, as Exhibit W-3.

(iv)

Copy of letter of the Personnel Manager (Empl) to the Personnel Manager (IC), Pandaveswar

Area dated 22/27.02.2007, informing that Shiuly Bauri is not eligible for employment as her age

was below 18 years, as Exhibit W-4.

(v)

Copy of the Admit Card of Shiuly Bauri issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna,

as Exhibit W-5.

(vi)

Copy of the Mark Sheet of Matriculation / Secondary School Examination, 2000 of Shiuly Bauri

issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, as Exhibit W-6.

(vii)

Copy of the Admit Card of Shiuly Bauri issued by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, as

Exhibit W-7.

(viii)

Copy of the Mark Sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2004 of Shiuly Bauri Shiuly Bauri issued

by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, as Exhibit W-8.

5.

In course of cross-examination the witness stated that at the time of submitting application she had

completed 18 years of age. She was referred before the IME Board. The witness stated that she did not have any

document related to her birth and her age was assessed by the IME Board. She denied the suggestion that she was

not entitled to employment on compassionate ground.

6.

Smt. Shakuntala Bauri, wife of the deceased employee has been examined as Workman Witness No. 2.

She reiterated the case disclosed in the written statement of the union. She claimed that as per Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of

NCWA the name of the daughter should have been kept in the Live Roster and after attaining the age of 18 years

she should be provided employment, till such employment management should pay monthly monetary

compensation to her. She stated that her daughter is still unmarried and she has no source of livelihood and is in

urgent need of employment and monetary assistance.

7.

In cross-examination Workman Witness No. 2 deposed that on 10.12.1996 Shiuly Bauri was 18 years of

age and she did not receive monetary compensation after the death of her husband.

8.

Management examined Mr. Vivek Prasad as Management Witness No. 1. The witness is posted as the

Assistant Manager (Personnel), Pandaveswar Area. In his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated that Khudiram Bauri

was an employee of ECL and expired on 10.12.1996. His daughter applied for employment and the case was

referred for IME. The dependent daughter was found fit for duty but she did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as she

should be 18 years of age on the date of death of the employee. The witness further stated in affidavit-in-chief that

the management approved the payment of monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/- per month and a letter was sent to

Shiuly Bauri dated 11/12.09.1998 but she refused to accept the same by letter dated 21.09.1998 and 21.06.1999.

Further case of the management is that according to the School Certificate and IME Report, Shiuly Bauri was

below 18 years of on 10.12.1996 i.e. the date of death of the ex-employee. During examination-in-chief the witness

produced the following documents :

(i)

Copy of the Medical Examination Report of Shiuly Bauri is marked as Exhibit M-1.

(ii)

Copy of letter dated 22/27.02.2007 of the Personnel Manager (Empl) to the Personnel Manager

(IC), Pandaveswar Area, informing that Shiuly Bauri is not eligible for employment as her age

was below 18 years, as Exhibit M-2.

(iii)

Copy of the Transfer Certificate of Shiuly Bauri issued by Headmaster of the School dated

22.08.1997, as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Copy of the affidavit submitted by Shiuly Bauri for her employment, as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Copy of the Attestation Form submitted by Shiuly Bauri, as Exhibit M-5.

(vi)

Copy of the letter 11/12.09.1998 whereby the dependent of the deceased was offered

maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month, as Exhibit M-6.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5873

(vii)

Copy of the letter of Shiuly Bauri dated 21.09.1998 addressed to the Deputy Chief Personnel

Manager, ECL Headquarters wherein dependent disagreed to accept the maintenance allowance

in lieu of employment, as Exhibit M-7.

(viii)

Copy of another letter of Shiuly Bauri dated 21.06.1999, refusing maintenance allowance, as

Exhibit M-8.

(ix)

Copy of Appointment letter of Sunita Kumari, dependent daughter of Late Chamari Lohar, as

Exhibit M-9.

(x)

Copy of medical report of Sunita Kumari issued by the Apex Medical Board, as Exhibit M-10.

9.

In cross-examination the witness deposed that in the report of IME three different age of Shiuly Bauri has

been recorded and the management has not relied upon any of the age recorded against Serial No. 4 to 6 of the

IME Report. He further deposed that there is no finding regarding the age of Shiuly Bauri in the IME Report

(Exhibit M-1). It is deposed by the witness that the name of Shiuly Bauri was not maintained in the Live Roster of

the company as there is no such provision in NCWA-VI to maintain the name of minor female dependent in the

Live Roster. The witness deposed that only the names of male dependents are mentioned in the Live Roster and

regret letter was issued to Shiuly Bauri as she claimed employment as a dependent. It transpires from the cross-

examination of Management Witness No. 1 that Shiuly Bauri did not complete her Matriculation at the time of

IME and no certificate was supplied. The witness further stated that her prayer was rejected on the basis of her age

mentioned in the Transfer Certificate placed before the IME Board and the IME Board did not assess her age

according to the medical rule.

10.

The point to consideration before this Tribunal is whether the dependent daughter is entitled for

employment on compassionate ground against the death of her father, on attaining majority and whether the widow

of the deceased employee is entitled to monetary compensation?

11.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative referring to the provision of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA-VI

argued that the prescribed age limit of female dependent seeking employment is 45 years and she had the option

either to seek employment or monetary compensation. A female dependent above the age of 45 years is vested

with the right to receive monetary compensation only and did not have right of employment. It is contented on

behalf of the dependents of the deceased employment that the dependent daughter of Khudiram Bauri was 17 years

and 9 months of age on the date of death of her father on 10.12.1996. Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA-VI vested the

right of exercising option between employment and monetary compensation to a female dependent below 45 years

of age. In the instant case after submitting application, claiming employment Shiuly Bauri appeared for her

medical examination held by the IME Board and on 25.09.1997 she was found medically fit for her employment.

At the relevant time the age of Shiuly Bauri was 18 years but the management on a misconception and

misinterpretation of the provision of NCWA, regretted the prayer of employment and after 11 years from the date

of death of her father, issued an internal letter bearing No. ECL/CMD/C-6B/Empl/3/1793 dated 22/27.02.2007

regrated the prayer for employment, observing that :

― On examination of I.M. E. report of female dependent it is observed that the age of female dependent was

assessed as 18 years as on 3.10.97, hence her date of birth comes as 3.10.79. According to above date of

birth the concerned female dependent (i.e. daughter) was aged 17 years 2 months 7 days as on date of death

of her deceased father and she was below 18 years of age therefore she is not entitled for employment as per

provision of NCWA.‖

It is argued that no communication of such information was made to Shiuly Bauri. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union

representative urged that there may be legal disability of the employer to engage any person below the age of 18

years under Section 45 of the Mines Act, 1952, but any female dependent on attaining adulthood has a vested right

in terms of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA to claim employment. It is also argued that till such employment is granted,

the female dependent / spouse of the deceased employee is entitled to monthly monetary compensation. In support

of his claim the union representative relied upon a decision of the learned Division Bench of the Hon‘ble High

Court at Calcutta in the case of Sukumoni Hembram Alias Sukumoni Mejhan Vs. The Union of India and

Others [MAT 27 of 2024] and the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal No.

23181 of 2024 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07.08.2024, passed in MAT 27 of 2024 by

the Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta. In the aforesaid MAT the appellant challenged the impugned order of the

Learned Single Judge who rejected the claim for compassionate appointment and directed payment of monetary

cash compensation. The Hon‘ble Division Bench after considering the provisions of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA,

applicable in the case held that :

― Provision vested the right of exercising an option between employment and monetary compensation with a

female dependent below 45 years. Once a right stand vested it can be taken away by a process approved by

law. In a given case, when the female dependent is below 45 years but above 18 years, she can opt for either

grant of employment or monetary compensation. If she opts for employment employer has no choice but

5874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

grant her the employment. However, if such female dependent is a minor on the date of death of the deceased

employee, she cannot be denied the right of exercising the option between employment and monetary

compensation in terms of clause 9.5.0 (ii) on the plea of the Mines Act, or otherwise. Right to employment or

monetary compensation stood vested in the female dependant under clause 9.5.0 (ii) notwithstanding she

being a minor on the date of death. This vested right can be taken from her only by a process approved by

law.‖

The Hon‘ble High Court further held that :

― Unlike other schemes for compassionate appointment which usually provides for negation of the claim of

appointment on the grounds of financial solvency or delay, clauses 9.3.0 to 9.5.0 of the NCWA does not specify

financial solvency or delay to be disqualifications for receipt of compassionate appointment or monetary

compensation. As noted above, provisions of the NCWA which is a settlement within the meaning of the Act of

1947 are required to be strictly construed.‖

In the said case the respondent authorities were directed to grant compassionate appointment to the appellant as

expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of 4 weeks from date, upon compliance with necessary

formalities. The said judgement of the Hon‘ble High Court in MAT 27 of 2024 was challenged before the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court of India through Special Leave to Appeal No. 23181 of 2024. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India

after hearing learned advocate counsel for the petitioners found no reason or ground to interfere with the order and

dismissed the Appeal and granted four weeks‘ time to the petitioner to comply with the order of High Court. The

union representative claimed that the dependent daughter of the deceased employee is entitled to employment.

12.

Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that at the time of death

of Khudiram Bauri, Shiuly Bauri the dependent daughter was a minor and unlike the provision of Clause 9.5.0 (iii)

of NCWA-VI where the male dependent of the deceased workman aged 12 years and above is kept in Live Roster

and is provided with employment commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attained the age of 18,

years there is no provision for keeping the name of female dependent in the Live Roster. It is argued that in such

case a female dependent is only entitled to monetary compensation. It is submitted that the provisions of NCWA

was agreed upon after prolong discussion and deliberation and the parties are bound by the terms of settlement laid

down in the NCWA. It is urged that at the time of formulating the terms of settlement the representatives of the

employees and the employer consciously excluded the female members from the purview of being considered for

maintaining their names in the Live Roster at the time the occasion for employment arose. Learned advocate

argued that monetary compensation of Rs. 2000/- per month was approved to the daughter of the deceased in lieu

of employment (Exhibit M-6) but the same has not been accepted. It is urged that under such circumstances the

Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.

13.

Having heard the argument advanced by the respective parties and having considered the materials on

record, evidence adduced by the parties and the position of law, it is necessary to consider if the claim for

employment by the dependent daughter of the deceased Khudiram Bauri is legal and justified. The admitted

position in this case is that Khudiram Bauri was a permanent employee of ECL and posted at Pandaveswar Area.

He died in harness on 10.12.1996, leaving behind Shakuntala Bauri, his widow and dependent daughters namely,

Shiuly Bauri and Doli Bauri. On the basis of an application submitted by Shiuly Bauri, claiming employment she

was referred for her pre-employment medical examination before the IME Board. The report of the IME dated

25.09.1997 has been placed by the management as Exhibit M-1. It appears from the report that the Board found

her fit for job and her age, as per appearance, was recorded as 18 years as on 03.10.1997. It appears from the

documents that there is some mismatch between the date on which the report was prepared i.e., 25.09.1997 and the

date on which the IME Board assessed her age on the basis of her appearance i.e., on 03.10.1997. The assessment

could not have been done after the date of submission of the report. The criteria considered for recording the age of

Shiuly Bauri was on the basis of her statement and the age as recorded in the Service Record Excerpt of the

deceased employee. As per Service Record Excerpt the age of Shiuly Bauri was 9 years on 01.04.1987. Therefore,

if her age was 9 years on 01.04.1987 as per the Service Record maintained by the company, Shiuly Bauri had

already attained 18 years on the date of death of her father and her age should have been 18 years and 8 months.

The management of ECL has produced Exhibit M-6 which is a letter dated 11/12.09.1998 addressed to Shiuly

Bauri where the Competent Authority approved maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the

daughter of the deceased in lieu of employment in place of her father. There was no clear communication to the

dependent daughter of deceased that her prayer for employment was rejected on any ground. It is gathered from

Exhibit M-2, a letter dated 22/27.02.2007 issued by Personnel Manager (Empl), ECL Headquarters, addressed to

the Personnel Manager (IC), Pandaveswar Area, informing that the age of female dependent was assessed as 18

years as on 03.10.97, hence her date of birth is inferred as 03.10.79. According to the management the concerned

female dependent (i.e., daughter) was aged 17 years 2 months 7 days as on date of death of her deceased father and

she was below 18 years of age therefore she is not entitled to employment as per provision of NCWA. From this

letter dated 22/27.02.2007 the final decision of the Competent Authority, refusing employment to the dependent

daughter has come to light, after passage of 11 years from the date of death of Khudiram Bauri.

14.

The relevant provision regarding employment to female dependent is provided in Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5875

NCWA-VI, which either allows employment or monetary compensation to a female dependent in case of death of

an employee while in service. It provides 45 years as the upper age limit for female dependent for exercising their

option either for employment or monetary compensation. A female dependent above 45 years of age is vested with

the right to receive monetary compensation only and she does not have any right to employment.

15.

According to the Service Record Shiuly Bauri completed her 18 years and few months on the death of her

father, where it was clearly laid down that her age was 9 years as on 01.04.1987. The Service Record Excerpt of

Khudiram Bauri was produced by the union as Exhibit W-2 and the age of Shiuly Bauri, recorded therein, appears

as 9 years. From the various documents relating to educational qualification of Shiuly Bauri, it appears that she

appeared in Matriculation Examination under Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in the year 2000 (Exhibit

W-6) and her Intermediate Examination under Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in the year 2004 (Exhibit

W-8). Therefore, there was no occasion for Shiuly Bauri to produce the certificates or admit card of such

examinations bearing her date of birth at the time of her appearance before the IME Board. Under such

circumstances the IME Board was required to rely upon the age of Shiuly Bauri, as it appeared in the Service

Record of the deceased employee or by holding her Ossification Test. Be that as it may, the provisions of Clause

9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA-VI vests the right to the dependent to exercise her option between employment and monetary

compensation to a female dependent below the age of 45 years. In the case of Sukumoni Hembram Alias

Sukumoni Mejhan vs The Union of India and Others [MAT 27 of 2024], the Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta

held that :

“ 41.

Clause 9.5.0 (ii) vests the right of exercising an option between employment and monetary

compensation with a female dependent below 45 years. Once a right stand vested it can be taken away by a

process approved by law. In a given case, when the female dependent is below 45 years but above 18 years

she can opt for either grant of employment or monetary compensation. If she opts for employment employer

has no choice but grant her the employment. However, if such female dependent is a minor on the date of

death of the deceased employee, she cannot be denied the right of exercising the option between employment

and monetary compensation in terms of clause 9.5.0 (ii) on the plea of the Mines Act, or otherwise. Right to

employment or monetary compensation stood vested in the female dependant under clause 9.5.0 (ii)

notwithstanding she being a minor on the date of death. This vested right can be taken from her only by a

process approved by law.”

The Hon‘ble High Court further held that :

“ 44.

Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of the NCWA provides for a scenario where there is a minor male dependent

in the family of the deceased employee and such family seeks to preserve the right of such male dependent to

receive employment on his attaining the age of an adult. Clause 9.5.0 (iii) does not govern the right of a

female dependent, in a family of the deceased employee, where there is no male dependent, to receive

employment or monetary compensation.”

The Hon‘ble High Court further noted that Clauses 9.3.0 to 9.5.0 of the NCWA does not specify financial

solvency or delay to be disqualifications for receipt of compassionate appointment or monetary compensation. The

Hon‘ble High Court allowed the appeal and directed the respondent authorities to grant compassionate

appointment to the appellant as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of 4 weeks from date,

upon compliance with necessary formalities. A Special Leave to Appeal was preferred before the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court of India against the judgement and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which

was dismissed, finding no reason or ground to interfere with the same. In the instant case the dependent daughter

submitted her application claiming compassionate employment in place of her dead father within a period of less

than 1 (one) year from the date of death of her father. At the time of her application, she had already attained the

age of majority. The dependent daughter is therefore entitled to get compassionate employment as per provisions

of Clause 9.5.0 (ii) of NCWA-VI. The management by denying employment to her acted in arbitrary and illegal

manner, bypassing the provisions of settlement which is binding upon them under Section 18(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The management has no occasion to deny such employment to the dependent daughter of the

deceased employee on the ground of delay or that the family of the deceased has been able to wade over financial

hardship, which arose immediately after the death of the employee. In the instant case the delay in disposing the

matter is attributable to the management of ECL.

16.

The widow of the deceased employee is also entitled to monetary compensation under Clause 9.5.0 (iii) of

NCWA-VI at the prevailing rate from 10.12.1996 i.e., the date of death of the employee till employment is granted

to the daughter. The Industrial Dispute is accordingly allowed in favour of the dependent daughter and widow of

the deceased employee.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Pandaveswar Area of Eastern

Coalfields Limited. The management of ECL is directed to grant compassionate employment to Shiuly Bauri

within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of communication of the Award. Smt. Sakuntala Bauri, widow of

the Late Khudiram Bauri is entitled to Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation (MMCC) at the prevailing rate

5876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from the date of death i.e., 10.12.1996 till compassionate employment / appointment is granted to the daughter.

The management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to pay the arrears of the monetary compensation to the

widow of the deceased employee within 3 (three) months from the date of communication of the Award. Let an

award be drawn up in light of my above findings. 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, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1537.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

] असनसोल ds iapkV (

18/2013) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/132/2013-अइअर (सी. एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1537.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

M/s. ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 06/08/2025.

[No. L-22012/132/2013– IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, 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. 18 OF 2013

PARTIES:

Pabitra Baratia,

(Dependent son of Late Antarjami Baratia)

Vs

Management of Nimcha Colliery, Satgram Area, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

24/06/2025

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-22012/132/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 03/10/2013 has been pleased to refer the following dispute

between the employer, that is the Management of Nimcha Colliery, Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited

and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5877

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of M/s. E.C. Limited to

dismiss from service to Sri Antarijami Baratia was proper, fair and proportionate judgement only on

ground of absenteeism which was due to his illness. If not, so what relief management can provide to

him?‖

1.

On receiving Order No. L-22012/132/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 03/10/2013 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 18 of 2013 was registered on

14/02/2014 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.

2.

Mr. H. L. Soni, Assistant General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on

07/10/2015 on behalf of Antarjami Baratia, dismissed workman. Management contested the case by filing written

statement on 15/03/2017. Brief fact of the case, as disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Antarjami

Baratia was posted as Underground Loader at Nimcha Colliery under Satgram Area of ECL and he did not attend

duty from 31/05/2008 to 05/09/2008 due to his illness and due to torture by money lenders. Workman reported for

his duty with medical certificate of his illness but he was not allowed to resume duty. A charge sheet No.

AGENT/NIM/PD/08/165 dated 06/09/2008 was issued to him. A domestic enquiry was initiated. Workman had no

information about the enquiry and he was unable to attend the same. Charged workman was not informed about

appointment of the Enquiry Officer, Management Representatives and the date fixed for enquiry. After lapse of

about three years management again issued another charge sheet bearing No. NIM/AGT/CS/2011/473 dated

09/15.04.2011. It is contended that second charge sheet was illegal, vague, motivated and had no binding effect

upon the workman after issuance of first charge sheet. Workman participated in the second enquiry and during

enquiry proceeding he explained reasons of his absence from duty and he also submitted medical certificates.

Without considering the reply of the workman, Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry in perfunctory manner and

the workman was dismissed. Workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner

(C), Asansol praying for resumption of duty on 22/06/2011. Workman was dismissed from service of the company

during pendency of Industrial Dispute and a letter of termination was issued to him by the General Manager

bearing No. SAT/PER/GM/Termination/11/3094 dated 29.09.2011/07.10.2011. It is asserted on behalf of the

workman that past record of the workman is good. His attendance in work during the year 2005 was 246 days,

during the year 2006 was 206 days and during the year 2007 was 257 days. It is only due to torture by money

lenders workman was unable to attend the duty. It is inter alia contended that dismissal of the workman from

service due to his absence from duty is harsh and disproportionate punishment to the nature of offence. It is further

stated that during pendency of the proceeding Antarijami Barati expired on 08/07/2014 and his son, Pabitra Baratia

was substituted in his place. Union prayed for providing direction upon the management to provide benefits to the

dependent son of the employee.

3.

Management of ECL in written statement disclosed that Antarjami Baratia was found absent from duty

from 31/05/2008 without any sanctioned leave and charge sheet was issued against him bearing No.

AGENT/NIM/PD/08/165 dated 06/09/2008. The workman did not participate in the enquiry and continued to

remain absent. Subsequently a fresh charge sheet was issued bearing No. NIM/AGT/CS/2011/473 dated

09/15.04.2011 under clause 26.29 of certified standing order of the company. A departmental enquiry was held on

11/08/2011 and charged employee participated in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer after concluding enquiry submitted

his report on 27/08/2011, where he found the workman guilty of the charge. A letter No. SAT/GM/PER/LAB-

C/2011/2858 dated 10/14.09.2011 was issued to the charged workman seeking explanation. Management after

considering all materials, terminated the workman from service and communicated the same to him through letter

No. SAT/PER/GM/Termination/11/3094 dated 29.09.2011/07.10.2011. Koyala Mazdoor Congress by letter No.

KMC/ID/2011/712 dated 21/06/2011 raised the Industrial Dispute. Manager further stated that during pendency of

the Industrial Dispute, Antarjami Baratia died and his legal heirs have no authority to continue the proceeding.

According to the management full opportunity was given to the workman in the domestic enquiry. Therefore,

Industrial Dispute raised by the union is liable to be dismissed.

4.

Union examined Pabitra Baratia, dependent son of Late Antarjami Baratia as Workman Witness-I. He

filed his affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined for the first time on 07/02/2018. Witness was re-examined on

recall on 06/12/2022 and was re-cross-examined by the management. Pabitra Baratia thereafter did not appear to

put his signature on evidence recorded on recall on 06/12/2022. Documents produced by him have been admitted

in evidence as follows:

(i)

copy of Enquiry Notice dated 15/17.04.2009 is marked as Exhibit W-1.

(ii)

copy of second Notice of enquiry dated 11/07/2009 is marked as Exhibit W-2.

(iii)

copies of document related to his father‘s departmental enquiry, mercy petition, charge sheet and medical

treatment papers are collectively marked as Exhibit W-3.

5878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5.

Management examined Sh. Sumit Choudhary as Management Witness-I. He filed his affidavit-in-chief

wherein it is stated that workman was a habitual absentee and remained absent without information or sufficient

reasons. On the last occasion workman was absent from duty from 31/05/2008 to 15/04/2011. Workman was

charge sheeted on 15/04/2011. Agent appointed the Enquiry Officer by his letter No. AGENT/NIM/PD/556 dated

26/27.07.2011. Notice of enquiry was served upon the workman vide letter No. AGENT/NIM/PD/2011/ENQ255

dated 05/08/2011. Workman appeared and participated in the enquiry. Management has filed copy of enquiry

proceeding in four pages and enquiry report in two pages which have been admitted in evidence. A second show

cause Notice dated 10/14.09.2011 was issued by the General Manager addressed to the workman. Workman

replied to the second show cause Notice and finally the General Manager dismissed the workman from service

vide his letter dated 29.09.2011/07.10.2011. According to the management, dismissal of the workman is justified.

In course of examination, witness produced the following documents:-

(i)

Copy of Charge Sheet dated 09/15.04.2011 issued to the workman for his unauthorized absence from duty

is produced as Exhibit M-1

(ii)

Copy of letter dated 26/27.07.2011 for appointment of the Enquiry Officer is produced as Exhibits M-2.

(iii)

Copy of Notice of enquiry dated 05/08/2011 fixing 11/08/2011 for enquiry is produced as Exhibit M-3.

(iv)

Copy of Enquiry proceeding in four pages is collectively produced as Exhibit M-4.

(v)

Copy of Enquiry report in two pages is collectively produced as Exhibit M-5.

(vi)

Copy of second show cause Notice dated 10/14.09.2011 issued to the charged employee is produced as

Exhibit M-6.

(vii)

Copy of reply dated 26/09/2011 submitted by the workman against the second show cause Notice is

produced as Exhibit M-7.

(viii)

Copy of letter of termination dated 29.09.2011/07.10.2011 issued by the General Manager, Satgram Area

is produced as Exhibit M-8.

(ix)

Copy of medical certificate issued by a private practicing doctor submitted by the concerned workman

during course of enquiry, is produced as Exhibit M-9.

In cross-examination, management witness stated that charge levelled against the workman was only due to long

unauthorized absence and no charge of habitual absence was arraigned against him. Witness admitted that on

earlier occasion a charge sheet was issued for absenting from duty w.e.f. 31/05/2008. The first departmental

enquiry was initiated against the workman but it was not completed and a second charge sheet was issued on

15/04/2011 covering entire period of unauthorized absence of the workman from 31/05/2008 till 15/04/2011. It

further transpires that no final order was passed in respect of the earlier enquiry proceeding. Witness denied that it

was illegal and improper to issue a second charge sheet for the purpose of computing the entire period of

unauthorized absence.

6.

Heard argument advanced by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative on behalf of Koyala Mazdoor

Congress. It is argued that management of ECL committed illegality by issuing two charge sheets against the

workman. First charge sheet was dated 06/09/2008 and a domestic enquiry was initiated against the workman but

without concluding the same, a second charge sheet was issued on 15/04/2011 which is illegal. Union

representative further argued that workman participated in the second enquiry and he had disclosed that he was

suffering from illness and he could not attend duty due to torture by moneylenders. It is argued that there were

sufficient reasons for the absence of the workman. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed against him is required

to be set aside and management shall pay back wages and all consequential reliefs to Pabitra Baratia, the dependent

son.

7.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management in reply argued that workman remained absent from

duty without leave or permission of the competent authority for three years. A charge sheet was issued against the

workman and enquiry was initiated but the workman did not participate in the enquiry and the enquiry proceeding

was discontinued. As workman continued to remain absent, management issued a fresh charge sheet against the

workman disclosing a charge of unauthorized absence from duty from 31/05/2008 till date of issue of charge sheet

i.e. 15/04/2011. On the second occasion, charge sheet was served upon the workman. An enquiry proceeding was

initiated and workman participated in the enquiry. After concluding of the enquiry workman was found guilty of

charge under clause 26.29 of certified standing order for his absence from duty for more than ten days without

information. Enquiry proceeding and findings of the Enquiry Officer were supplied to the charged employee. A

second show cause Notice (Exhibit M-6) was issued to the workman. He submitted reply (Exhibit M-7) against the

second show cause Notice and finally after considering all materials on record and enquiry proceeding, General

Manager, Satgram Area dismissed the workman from service by issuing a letter dated 29.09.2011/07.10.2011

(Exhibit M-8). Learned advocate submitted that order of dismissal issued against the workman is appropriate,

proper and consistent with the nature of misconduct.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5879

8.

Having considered the arguments advanced by the union representative and learned advocate for the

management, it appears to me that union is harping upon facts that initially charge sheet was issued to the

workman for his unauthorized absence on 06/09/2008 but without completing the enquiry another charge sheet was

issued to the workman on 15/04/2011. According to the union, second charge sheet could not have been issued

during pendency of the first charge sheet. I have considered facts and circumstances and evidence adduced by

parties. In the written statement, union stated that workman did not receive any Notice of the first charge sheet and

also, he did not participate in the enquiry proceeding. I find that neither any final decision was taken in respect of

the first charge sheet nor did the Enquiry Officer submit his report. The concerned workman continued to remain

absent and it would appear that he had practically fled his place of work by remaining away for more than two

years and eleven months. In view of long unauthorized absence, management is always in a position to take

appropriate action. Management accordingly issued a fresh charge sheet disclosing charge of unauthorized absence

for a longer period from 31/05/2008. Copy of charge sheet is produced as Exhibit M-1/Exhibit W-3/3. On the

second occasion workman participated in the enquiry proceeding. Notice of enquiry was issued to him (Exhibit M-

3). An enquiry proceeding was conducted on 11/08/2011. Copy of the Enquiry proceeding produced has been

admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-4. It disclosed that charge was proved by the two management representatives,

namely Tathagata Gupta and S. Tapadar and the charged employee was also present during the enquiry. In the

Enquiry report, the workman was found guilty of charge. Second show cause Notice was issued and in reply to the

same, workman reiterated that he was absent due to illness and in fear of torture by the moneylenders.

Management did not consider such plea as sufficient and plausible reasons for the workman to remain absent from

duty for such a long period and found it fit to dismiss the workman from service.

9.

I find from the record that Enquiry officer held enquiry in a fair manner by providing opportunity to the

charged employee to cross-examine the management representatives. Principles of Natural Justice were also duly

followed. It is unusual and unacceptable that a workman would leave his place of work without any information or

authorization from the employer and disrupt work by long absence. If the presence of the workman is

unpredictable in his workplace, management cannot place reliance upon such workman for his participation and

contribution in his work. He also failed to prove his illness.

10.

In view of my above discussion, I find no illegality in the order of dismissal of workman from service.

Workman who remained absent for such a long period without proper grounds is detrimental to the interest of the

employer company. Punishment of dismissal of the workman is accordingly found to be proportionate to the nature

of misconduct of long absence, without justified cause. To my mind, workman was not justified in remaining

absent from duty without tenable reasons. I find no merit in the Industrial Dispute and hold that legal heirs of the

dismissal workman are not entitled to any relief except the dues due to past service. Industrial Dispute is according

dismissed.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Legal heirs of the dismissed workman are not entitled to any

relief except the legal dues arising out of service already rendered by Antarjami Baratia. Let an Award be drawn

up in the light of my above discussion. Let copies of Award be communicated to the Ministry for information

and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1538.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार ईृमंडल ऄजधकारी (टी), भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, डलहौजी, चंबा (जहमाचल प्रदेि); महाप्रबंधक, भारत

संचार जनगम जलजमटेड धमडिाला, कांगड़ा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ृरवीन कुमार (जहमाचल प्रदेि) के

बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-I नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभड सं्‍या-

100/2012) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

05.08.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-40011/21/2012-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

5880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1538.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to The Sub Divisional Officer (T), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Dalhousie, Chamba (HP); The

General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Dharamshala, Kangra and Sh. Parveen Kumar (HP), which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 05.08.2025.

[No. L-40011/21/2012-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

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

ID No.100/2012

Registered on 03.04.2013

Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Chand R/o Bus Stand Dalhousie (Nr. Cinema Hall) Tehsil Dalhousie, District

Chamba (HP),

-Through the General Secretary, Distt. Committee, All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) CHEP, Stage-II,

Karian, PO-Hardaspura Chamba (HP).

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

Versus

1.

The Sub Divisional Officer (T), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Dalhousie, Chamba (HP).

2.

The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Dharamshala, Kangra.

........Management-Respondents

Sh. T.R. Bharadwaj AR for Workman

Sh. Anish Babbar AR for Management

Judgment reserved on 10th July, 2025

Judgment Pronounced on 28th July, 2025

JUDGMENT/AWARD

1.

Outline: Instant Industrial Dispute has been registered for adjudication on the basis of a Reference vide

Notification No. L-40011/21/2012-IR(DU) dated 25.02.2013 under clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act), of the Ministry of Labour-

Government of India as follows:-

“Whether the action of the management i.e. General Manager Telecom, Shimla Circle in not converting

the services of Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Kisan Chand from part time safai karamchari to full time

casual labour w.e.f. 17.05.2002 is just, fair and legal, if not to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled and from which date?.‖

2.

The case of Workman/ Petitioner- As per claim statement filed on behalf of workman, he was employed

as a Part Time sweeper on 15.12.1998 in Telecom Sub-Division Dalhousie. It is said that earlier the father of the

workman was employed in the Department but due to his ill health the workman was appointed in place of his father

and a written consent was also taken from both of them on 15.12.1998. In the year 2001 the process of converting

part time employees to full time casual labourer on daily wages started, as per letter of Department dated

25.08.2000. As per the criteria set out in above said letter dated 25.08.2000, the part time worker who worked

continuously for 240 days in the department preceding/ last 12 months, they were liable to converted into full time

casual labourers. It is said that workman fulfilled all conditions as per letter dated 25.08.2000 and was requested to

fill up proforma and to submit it with the relevant documents by the respondent department to make him full time

worker. It is further said that the favorite junior co-workers who were part time workers are made full time workers

because of their personal interest vide Memo No.E-7/PT/Safaiwala/PT-1 dated 17.05.2002. But the workman

Parveen Kumar was denied his conversion into full time casual worker. Whenever the workman consulted

departmental officer they only assured that he could also be converted into full time casual labourer but no action

was taken. When grievance of workman was not resolved he raised a dispute before Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central) / Conciliation Officer through a demand note for amicable settlement. The demand raised was not resolved

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5881

and a conciliation failure report was sent to the Ministry by the Regional Labour Commissioner and reference by

Labour Ministry was sent to the Tribunal for adjudication. It is further stated by the workman that he is still working

as part time worker but w.e.f. August, 2011 onward he has not been paid. It is also stated that workman had made

several request but nothing has been done in this regard and his wages are still not paid. Through the claim statement

it is prayed that respondent be directed to regularize the services of workman w.e.f. 17.05.2002 or from the date of

joining of Junior Employees in regular capacity with all consequential reliefs i.e. Seniority, Arrear of Pay and

allowance service benefits etc, to pay the part time wages lying pending for the period w.e.f. August, 2011 till the

date, to pay cost of litigation and any other relief as this Court may deem fit and proper.

3.

The case of Management-Respondents- The opposite parties BSNL Authorities have contested the claim

petition of workman and they have filed their written statement/ reply and objection against the claim petition.

According to case of management the workman was never appointed on regular post. However, it is admitted by the

opposite parties BSNL Management that workman was engaged as Part Time Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 01.05.1999.

He could not be converted into full time casual worker as he did not fulfill conditions laid down in the Department

of Telecom, New Delhi Letter No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 25.08.2000 and Chief G.M. Telecom, H.P. Telecom

Circle, Shimla Letter No. staff/S-1035/81 dated 14.11.2000. According to further case of management the workman

has submitted demand notice in year 2012 which is time barred and stale, therefore, his claim is liable to be

dismissed. According to contesting opposite parties the workman is not entitled to benefits as per instructions

contained in letters dated 25.08.2000 and dated 14.11.2000 as he did not fulfill the conditions laid down by the

Department of Telecom. According to management the cutoff date is 01.08.1998 whereas the workman was engaged

as Part Time Safai Karamchari on 01.05.1999. In further written statement/ reply of management the facts and

contents mentioned in claim petition have been denied and it is stated that he never worked as sweeper in BSNL.

According to management his father was working as Part Time Employee since year 1970 and he abandoned his

services on 15.12.1998. According to case of opposite parties only dependent of regular employee can claim

appointment on compassionate ground and therefore no claim of workman Parveen Kumar is sustainable in the

present case. The management has denied document of salary record annexed and submitted by workman alongwith

his claim petition as not signed by any BSNL official/ authorities. According to management as per decision of

Supreme Court in Uma Devi case workman is not entitled to any benefits. It is further stated by the management that

the workman did not fulfill the conditions laid down in Department letters therefore, he was not converted into full

time casual labourer on daily wages. The management has however, admitted that workman had earlier represented

at various levels for his conversion from part time casual labour to full time casual labourer and a suitable reply has

already been communicated to him vide letter dated 23.08.2010. It is also admitted by management that workman

worked till October, 2004 and wages were paid to him. According to case of management thereafter, the workman

abandoned his job on his own and therefore consideration of representation- Annexure P-9 to P-8 for salary w.e.f.

August, 2011 does not arise. The workman has raised Industrial Dispute after 7 years and therefore same is liable to

be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

4.

Issues: Since present Industrial Dispute case has arisen out of a reference received from Ministry of

Labour, Government of India, therefore the terms of reference which are received for adjudication are the issues and

no other issues are required to be settled for determination.

5.

During hearing of the case the workman Parveen Kumar has got himself examined as Workman Witness

No.1 and during his evidence certain documents were brought on record and were marked as Exhibits as follows:

Sr. No.

Particulars

Annexure/ Exhibit

1.

Affidavit

Ex. W-1

2.

Copy of Written Consent dated 15.12.1998

Ex. W-2

3.

Copy of Written Consent dated 15.12.1998

Ex. W-3

4.

Copy of Letter dated 25.08.2000

Ex. W-4

5.

Copy of Details from 1999 to 2006

Ex. W-5

6.

Copy of Proforma

Ex. W-6

7.

Copy of Letter dated 17.05.2002

Ex. W-7

8.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-8

9.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-9

10.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-10

11.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-11

12.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-12

5882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-13

14.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-14

15.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-15

16.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-16

17.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-17

18.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-18

19.

Copy of Representation

Ex. W-19

20.

Copy of Letter dated 09.07.2012

Ex. W-20

6.

During hearing of the case Management one witness namely Subhash Chand working as Assistant

General Manager (Legal/ HR) GMTD, Dharamshala (HP) got examined as Management Witness No.1 and

during his evidence certain documents were brought on record and were marked as Exhibits as follows:

Sr. No.

Particulars

Annexure/ Exhibit

1.

Affidavit

Ex. MW-1

2.

Copy of Letter dated 23.08.2010

Ex. MW-2

3.

Copy of Letter dated 25.08.2000

Ex. MW-3

7.

Arguments of Parties: According to Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of workman although the workman

was engaged as Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 15.12.1998 but the management has accepted him as part time employee

since 01.05.1999. Even if he was treated as employee since 01.05.1999 he has right to be converted into full time

casual labourer as he has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months which was cut off date i.e. 25.08.2000 as

per the Government of India, Department of Telecom Service, Letter No.266-13/99-STN-II dated 25.08.2000. It is

argued that this letter was further endorsed by another letter dated 14.11.2000 issued from the office of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Shimla, Circle, wherein application from all Part Time casual labourers were called for who

were working as on 01.08.1998 and 25.08.2000 for the purpose of converting them into full time casual labourers.

According to Ld. Counsel for the workman an application by workman Parveen Kumar was also duly forwarded by

Sub-Divisional Officer, Dalhousie and was sent for the purpose in which it was clearly mentioned that the workman

have already completed 305 days as on 25.08.2000. But candidature of workman was refused whereas other 40

persons have been converted as full time casual labourers as per the Policy contained in letter dated 25.08.2000 and

14.11.2000. It is argued that the ground for rejection of claim of workman as taken by management is that he did not

fulfill the criteria is wrongly taken as according to the Policy contained in letter dated 25.08.2000 and even in letter

dated 14.11.2000 the workman was fulfilling the criteria for conversion from part time employee to full time casual

labor. It is also argued that even several representations were given two concerned authorities but grievance of

workman was not resolved and he was not converted from Part Time Employee to full time casual labourer which is

against the policy contained in letter dated 25.08.2000 and 14.11.2000. It is also argued that even there has been

sufficient vacancies to accommodate this workman but he has been wrongly denied his right to be converted from

Part Time casual labourer into full time casual labor. It is prayed that this Industrial Dispute may be allowed and

management of BSNL be directed to convert the workman from part time casual labourer to full time casual labor.

8.

Per Contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of BSNL Management had submitted that workman has

no right to be converted from Part Time labourer to Full time casual labourer as he was not fulfilling criteria on the

relevant cut off date contained in the policy in letter dated 25.08.2000 and 14.11.2000. Elaborating the argument Ld.

Counsel appearing on behalf of management has pointed out that as per policy letter dated 25.08.2000 those part

time casual labors with less than 4 hours of duty per day were to be converted into full time casual labors who had

worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months as on date of issuance of the letter dated 25.08.2000. According to

Ld. Counsel this letter was issued when BSNL was department of telecom services and letter was issued from

Government of India. When department of Telecom Services was converted into BSNL in the month of October,

2000 another letter dated 14.11.2000 was issued by office of CGMT, HP Circle, Shimla wherein cut off date for

working was mentioned as on 01.08.1998. Since the workman was not working as on 01.08.1998 his case was not

considered for converting into full time casual labor. According to Ld. Counsel for the management as per record

and the date mentioned in the application for the workman was working since 01.05.1999, therefore he had been

rightly denied conversion into full time casual labourer from part time labor. No case for any relief is made out in

the present Industrial Dispute and therefore Industrial Dispute may be dismissed.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5883

FINDINGS

9.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of case record it appears that the present Industrial Dispute

revolves around the denial of the claim of workman Parveen Kumar for conversion into full time casual labourer

from part time worker on the ground that he was not fulfilling the required criteria and condition laid down by the

Telecom Department in its policy letters dated 25.08.2000 and 14.11.2000. The reference which has been received

for adjudication is also pointing the same question as to whether action of management in not converting the

services of Parveen Kumar from Part Time Safai Karamchari to full time casual labourer is just fair and legal? The

two important documents first being Letter No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 25.08.2000 issued from Government of

India, Department of Telecom Services New Delhi and second document being Letter No.Saff/S-1035/81 dated

14.11.2000 issued from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited office of CGMT HP Circle, Shimla are available on the case

record which are marked as Exhibit/ Annexure P-3 and Ex. W-21. This two letters are admitted by both the parties

and not in any dispute. According to case of workman he was fulfilling the required criteria/ conditions as per policy

contained in this letters whereas according to BSNL Management the workman was not fulfilling the conditions

mentioned in this Policy letter and therefore he was denied to be converted into full time casual labourer . Let us

examine what is policy as per above referred two important documents containing the policy of telecom department

(BSNL) converting part time worker into a full-time causal worker.

10.

It appears that Letter No.269-13/99-STN-II dated 25.08.2000 issued from Government of India was a

policy decision taken after consultation with Telecom Finance and it was decided that as one time relaxation part

time casual labors with less than 4 hours of duty per day who had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months

may be converted into full time causal labors. Certain conditions were also mentioned in this letter and as per

condition No. ix), the orders will take effect from the date of issue of this letter which is 25.08.2000. Meaning

thereby a part time casual labourer with less than 4 hours of duty if had already worked for atleast 240 days in the

preceding 12 months from 25.08.2000, he was entitled for conversion into full time casual labourer. In the present

case workman Parveen Kumar is although claiming that he has been engaged since 15.12.1998 but as per admission

of department he was working since 01.05.1999. Even date 01.05.1999 which is admitted date by BSNL

Management is taken to be correct one from the date when the workman Parveen Kumar was engaged as part time

casual labourer, on the cut off date 25.08.2000 he had already completed more than 240 days. Now adverting to

another letter dated 14.11.2000 which is Ex. W-21, it is clear that this letter has been issued after incorporation of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. for the purpose of regularization of the casual labourers. In this letter issued from Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. CGMT, HP Circle, Shimla, earlier letter issued from Department of Telecom Service dated

25.08.2000 is also referred. Vide this letter dated 14.11.2000 application from all part time causal labourers were

called for who were working as on 01.08.1998 and 25.08.2000. In the said letter even vacant posts in Group D

(including RM) were also indicated. As per said indication DMA TD was having 63 such vacant posts. The

prescribed application format attached with abovesaid letter dated 14.11.2000 mentions at point No.8- whether

working as part time labourer i) as on 01.08.1998 ii) as on 25.08.2000. At Point No.9- No. of days worked from

26.08.1999 to 25.09.2000 is to be mentioned. The application of workman which has been forwarded by SDO (T)

Dalhousie for the purpose of conversion from Part Time Casual labour into full time casual labour is also available

on the record and same is marked as Ex. P-5. In this application at Point No.8 & 9, it is specifically mentioned that

the workman was working from 01.05.1999 and had completed 305 days from 26.08.1999 to 25.08.2000. It may be

noticed that in the letter 14.11.2000 issued from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Himachal Pradesh Circle, Shimla itself

two dates are mentioned i.e. 01.08.1998 and 25.08.2000 when a part time casual labourer was required to be

working on these dates. In the case of workman Parveen Kumar first date i.e. 01.08.1998 mentioned in the policy

letter is not applicable as a date on which he was working but second dated 25.08.2000 is applicable as the workman

is said to be working from 01.05.1999 as per BSNL Management itself. In above view of the matter the submission

of BSNL Management that workman was not fulfilling the required criteria and condition contained in two policy

letters dated 25.08.2000 and 14.11.2000 cannot be accepted. It appears that when workman Parveen Kumar was

denied his right to be converted into full time casual labourer he represented several times with a prayer for

considering his case also but ultimately his claim of conversion into full time casual labourer was refused and the

management intimated to him in writing vide letter dated 23.08.2010 issued from the office of General Manager,

Telecom District Dharamshala. In the said communication of refusal it has been specifically stated that when

process for conversion from part time casual labourer into full time casual labourer started in year 2000 as per letter

dated 14.11.2000 issued from office of HP Circle, Shimla workman Parveen Kumar was not fulfilling the conditions

mentioned therein. The reason for refusal as stated in letter dated 23.08.2010 is apparently Arbitrary and is against

the policy itself. Another document dated 24.11.2009 which is communication between sub-divisional official (T)

Dalhousie and the DET Admn. GMTD, Dharamshala has been brought on record as Exhibit. Annexure P-8 wherein

it has been specifically mentioned that as per available record Parveen Kumar had worked 305 days in the year

1999-2000 as part time sweeper @Rs.6.50/- per hour for three hours in a day. It is also mentioned that he worked till

October, 2004 and after verbal direction of your office (Office of GMTD, Dharamshala) he was removed from Part

Time Sweeper. This letter itself is a glaring example as to how workman Parveen Kumar has been harassed and

even removed on a verbal direction when he had already fulfilled condition and criteria for his conversion into full

time casual labourer . Exhibit/ Annexure P-6 is letter issued from the office of General Manager, Telecom District,

5884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dharamshala wherein as many as 40 persons has been converted from Part Time Casual Labourers into full time

casual labourers as per the policy contained in Letter dated 25.08.2000 and 14.11.2000. I do find that infact claim of

workman Parveen Kumar has been arbitrarily and illegally rejected for conversion into full time casual labourer

from Part Time casual labourer .

11.

From the evidence of Management witness Sh. Subhash Chand. It is clear that the witness in his cross

examination has admitted that there were 63 posts in Dharamshala Circle and 40 post were filled up. From the

perusal of various documents which has been brought on the record and proved by workman I am of the considered

view that workman Parveen Kumar have been able to make out a case for conversion into full time casual labourer

from part time casual labourer as per policies enshrined in letter dated 25.08.2000 and 14.11.2000.

12.

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

present reference No. L-40011/21/2012-IR(DU) dated 25.02.2013 in respect of the action of the management i.e.

General Manager Telecom, Shimla Circle in not converting the services of Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Kisan Chand

from part time safai karamchari to full time casual labour w.e.f. 17.05.2002 is held unjust, unfair and illegal. The

reference stands adjudicated accordingly. Since the action of the Telecom Management Shimla Circle is held unjust,

unfair and illegal, the workman Parveen Kumar is entitled for his conversion into full time casual labourer from part

time casual labourer.

13.

It is therefore-

ORDERED

That the present ID No.100/2012 titled as Parveen Kumar Versus BSNL arising out of reference No. L-

40011/21/2012-IR(DU) dated 25.02.2013 is decided in favour of workman Parveen Kumar, the action of the

management i.e. General Manager Telecom, Shimla Circle in not converting the services of Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o

Sh. Kisan Chand from part time safai karamchari to full time casual labour w.e.f. 17.05.2002 is held unjust, unfair

and illegal. The reference stands adjudicated accordingly. Since the action of the Telecom Management Shimla

Circle is held unjust, unfair and illegal, the workman Parveen Kumar is entitled for his conversion into full time

casual labourer from part time casual labourer. The BSNL Management is directed to convert workman Parveen

Kumar from Part Time Casual Labour to full time Casual Labour as per policy decision of the Department contained

in letter dated 25.08.2000 and 14.11.2000.

14.

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

publication.

Dated: 28.07.2025

B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1539.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार सजचव, केंरीय माध्यजमक जिक्षा बोडड; ककग जसक्योररटी गाड्सड सर्मवसेज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध

जनयोजकों और श्री महेि कुमार के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II

नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड सं्‍या- 249/2022) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/179-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1539.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 249/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education; King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd.,

and Sh. Mahesh Kumar, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/179-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5885

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 249/2022

Sh. Mahesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh,

Through- Samajwadi Karamchari Union,

D-212, Gali No. 10, Jagatpuri, Mandoli Road,

Delhi-110093.

Versus

3.

The Secretary,

Central Board of Secondary Education,

Shiksha Kendra, # 2-Community Centre,

Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092.

4.

King Security Guards Services Pvt. Ltd.,

39-A/102, Mohammadpur Village, Near Ram Mandir,

New Delhi-110066.

Appearance:-

For Claimant: Sh. Ajay Tyagi, Ld. AR along with claimant.

For Management: Ms. Vilaksha Daima, Ld. AR for the management-1.

Sh. Kripal Singh, Ld. AR for management-2.

AWARD

16.07.2025

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

the claimant stating that he was working with the management as Security Guard since 04.03.2019 and his last

drawn salary was Rs. 17,500/- per month. He was deprived from legal facilities i.e. appointment letter, salary slip

etc. When he demanded for the above said facilities, he services was illegally terminated on 01.01.2020. He has

gone to the conciliation, but, it was resulted into failure. Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be

reinstated with full back wages.

Management no. 1 has filed its WS. They have denied the averment made in the statement of claim. They

have also submitted that claim is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

Management no. 2 has also filed its WS stating that claimant misused the process of law by filing the

present claim. They have denied the averment made in the statement of claim. He submitted that claim is liable to be

dismissed.

Now, the matter is listed for filing of rejoinder. Counsel of the workman submits that claimant is not in

touch with him since long.

In these circumstances, when the claimant is not interested in perusing his case, this Tribunal has no option

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

sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. Record of this file is consigned to

record room.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer.

Date: 16.07.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1540.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार प्रबंध जनदेिक, मेससड भारतीय सुरक्षा बल, हजदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री चौधरी यादजया,

हजदराबाद के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय हजदराबाद ृंचाट

5886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(संदभड सं्‍या- 53/2015) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42012/113/2015-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1540.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

relation to The Managing Director, M/s. Indian Security Force, Hyderabad and Sri Ch. Yadaiah, Hyderabad,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42012/113/2015-IR (DU)

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day of June, 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 53/2015

Between:

Sri Ch. Yadaiah,

R/o H.No.5-116,

Rajyalakshminagar,

2 Gurramguda,

Hyderabad – 501 510.

….. Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director,

M/s. Indian Security Force,

D.No.1-90/13, 2nd floor,

Bhagyalakshmi Nilayam,

Opp CCMB, Near Hotel Suprabath,

Habsiguda, Hyderabad – 500 007.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Party in person

For the Respondent:

None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 42012/113/2015-IR(DU) dated

10.6.2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this

Tribunal between the management of M/s. Indian Security Force and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s. Indian Security Force in terminating the services of Shri

Ch.Yadaiah w.e.f. 13.11.2014 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Sec.25F of I.D. Act, 1947? If yes, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5887

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 53/2015 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2.

The averments made is the claim statement are as follows:

It is submitted that the Petitioner was joined as House Keeping Supervisor (Semi skilled supervisor) in the

Respondent company on 1.4.2011, and was deputed as House Keeping supervisor in EFLU (English and Foreign

Languages University), Tarnaka, Hyderbad. The duties assigned to him by the Respondent were as follows: for

taking the attendance of about 290 workers, preparation of absentees list whenever required, updating all the leave

balances and coordinating with the officials of EFLU in day to-day work. Petitioner discharged his duties to the

satisfaction of the Respondent without any allegations and complaints neither from the side of the management nor

from the side of the workers. At the time of joining in the Respondent company his salary was fixed as Rs.6,000/-

per month, about fifteen months it was enhanced to Rs.8,000/-per month. On 16.9.2014 Petitioner gave a letter to

the Respondent with a request to enhance his salary from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.11,000/-per month. It is submitted that

without showing any valid reason on 12.11.2014 at about 3.30 p.m the General Manager of the Respondent

company namely P.S.Ramamurthy has orally informed the Petitioner to stop coming to duties from the next day

onwards. On 13.11.2014 to attend to his duty Petitioner has visited the office of the Respondent but he was

stopped by the security at the entrance gate of the Respondent. Inspite of repeated requests the Respondent has

not allowed the Petitioner from joining duties. The above referred facts clearly reveals that the Respondent has

acted as per their will and wish without following any procedure and not given any written termination letter and

not given an opportunity the Petitioner to ask the reason for the illegal termination. It is submitted that

Petitioner approached the Assistant Labor Commissioner (central)-1,Hyderabad. Then after the dispute was

referred to this Hon‘ble Court. After the illegal removal, the Respondent has given "Experience cum salary

certificate" dated 26.11.2014 stating that Petitioner had worked as a house keeping supervisor in EFLU, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad. Further, stated that my performance was satisfactory and consolidated monthly salary is Rs.8,000/-

per month. It is submitted that before the Assistant Labor Commissioner (Central)-1,Hyderabad the Respondent

has filed reply vide their letter dated 29-12-2014 with false and baseless allegations, alleging that "he has

misbehaved with some of the women workers and developed illegal intimacy with them with the result our

organization is getting bad name. He has shown favoritism on some of the workers by manipulating their

attendance in the registers. He is not telling to duties to his favorite workers and they are taking rest without doing

proper duties. Some of the workers are leaving duties after signing in the attendance registers and they are leisurely

attending on their duties" and also further alleged that Petitioner was simply sitting in the office room and

spending time without supervision of the work and absenting from duties without any intimation and university

authorities also unhappy. It is submitted that the above referred allegations are false and baseless. It is submitted

that the Respondent has not followed Minimum Wages Act, therefore Petitioner approached the Regional Labour

Commissioner(Central) at Hyderabad vide Application no.84/2015. The said Regional Labour Commissioner(C)

has directed the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.38,674/- towards the difference amount as per the Central

Minimum Wages Act and also imposed a sum of Rs.2000/- towards fine. The Respondent has paid the above

referred amount through banker‘s cheques dated 9.9.2015. The Respondent also has not followed Bonus Act,

Petitioner approached the Regional Labor commissioner(Central) at Hyderabad, who has directed the Respondent

to pay a sum of Rs.12,537/- towards the bonus, the said amount paid by the Respondent through banker‘s cheque

dated 9.9.2015. It is submitted that entire family consisting of two unemployed sons and wife have been

depending on Petitioner‘s income. It is submitted that the Respondent illegally terminated the Petitioner without

any valid reason and without giving any prior notice or written notice and acted as per its will and wish without

following any procedure and there is no fault of Petitioner. Therefore, prayed to reinstate the Petitioner as House

Keeping supervisor in the Respondent company, with back wages from 13.11.2014 to till reinstatement and

Rs.50000/- towards compensation and costs of filing this case.

3.

Despite service of notice, Respondent did not file any counter in this case. Therefore, case was proceeded

ex-parte against the Respondent vide order dated 5.2.2019.

4.

In support of his claim petition Petitioner has filed chief statement of affidavit of himself as WW1

wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. He has also filed the photocopies of nine

documents in evidence vide list dated 13.10.2015. The details of these documents are hereunder:- Ex.W1 is the

identity card issued by Respondent to the Petitioner. Ex.W2 is the letter dated 16.9.2014 submitted by Petitioner to

the Respondent to enhance his salary. Ex.W3 is the experience cum salary certificate issued by Respondent dated

26.11.2014. Ex.W4 is letter dated 29.12.2014 filed by the Respondent before ALC(C)-1, Hyderabad. Ex.W5 is

the reply/rejoinder letter dated 5.1.2015 filed by the Petitioner before the ALC(C)-I, Hyderabad. Ex.W6 is the

letter dated 17.3.2015 filed by the Respondent before ALC(C)-1, Hyderabad. Ex.W7 & W8 are banker‘s cheques

dated 9.9.2015 for Rs.38,674/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively issued by Respondent to the Petitioner. Ex.W9 is the

Memorandum dated 16.4.2015 stating that the minimum wages applicable to the workers w.e.f. 1.4.2015 issued by

Dy. CLC(C).

5.

Petitioner has alleged that he joined the service in the Respondent company on 1.4.2011 as a House

Keeping Supervisor (semi skilled supervisor) and his duties were, taking attendance of about 290 workers,

preparation of absentees list whenever required, updating all the leave balance and coordinating with the officials

5888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of EFLU in day to day work. Further, it is alleged that the Respondent without any valid reason or without issuing

notice has illegally terminated the services of the Petitioner by oral order dated 12.11.2014 with effect from

30.11.2014. Petitioner in his chief statement of affidavit states that from the day of his joining as supervisor in the

Respondent company up to the date of illegal termination he has satisfactorily discharged his duties. After the

illegal removal the Respondent has issued experience cum salary certificate dated 27.11.2014 stating that the

Petitioner has worked as a House Keeping Supervisor in EFLU, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and Petitioner was sincere

and hardworking. It is further stated that his performance was satisfactory and his consolidated monthly salary

was Rs.8000/- per month.

6.

The documentary evidence filed by the Petitioner are, Ex.W1 is the photocopy of the identity card which

goes to show that Respondent company Indian Security Force issued identity card in the name of Petitioner with

designation of supervisor. Further, Ex.W3 is experience cum salary certificate, showing that Petitioner had

worked in the Respondent company as supervisor housekeeping. Further. Ex.W4 is the reply submitted by Indian

Security Force, the Respondent to the ALC(C), ATI campus, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad wherein Respondent has

admitted that the Petitioner was employee of the Respondent and they have stopped him from doing the job with

effect from 12.11.2014 and paid his salary through SBH, EFLU branch. Further, it is stated that the salary has

been paid regularly and there are no dues to him. Further, it is stated that when Petitioner had joined the duty,

Respondent used to pay Rs.6000/- per month upto June, 2012 and later the Respondent enhanced the pay of

Petitioner to Rs. 8000/- per month from July 2012 to November 2014. Thus, from the reply Ex.W4, submitted

by Respondent company before ALC(C) it is established that Petitioner had worked in the employment of

Respondent till November 2014. As regards, rest of the allegations made by Respondent in his reply against

Petitioner, are not established as Respondent did not appear and filed any reply or evidence in support of alleged

charges. Undisputedly no departmental enquiry has been conducted by the Respondent against the Petitioner in

this case.

7.

Therefore, in view of the above, it is established that the Petitioner had worked in Respondent company

from i.e., 1.4.2011 to 12.11.2014 without any interruption. Further, it is established that he has been terminated

by the Respondent from service vide order dated 12.11.2014, without giving one month statutory notice and

without payment of any compensation amount as required under section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 for valid

retrenchment of the Workman. Thus, Respondent has terminated Petitioner from his employment in contravention

of the provision contained under section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

8.

However, as regards the relief, prayed for reinstatement of Petitioner in the services of the Respondent

company, the reference of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court is relevant, as discussed hereunder:-

In the case of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal, Civil Appeal No.10957/2015 AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1188,

Hon‘ble Supreme Court have held:-

“It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an

order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of

reinstatement should not, however, automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in

a case where the workman has completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination,

particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been

awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent

employee." Jagbir Singh has been applied very recently in Telegraph Deptt. V. Santosh Kumar Seal[12],

wherein this Court stated: (SCC p.777, para ll) "In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the

workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief

of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation

would subserve the ends of justice."

………. …………

23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of

reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in

all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated

illegally and or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it

comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because

of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is

consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the

workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting

in this direction is obvious.”

In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi flight Services AIR 2010 SCC page 502 wherein Hon‘ble

Supreme Court have held:-

8. In the case of Sita Ram V. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute2 this Court considered the matter

thus:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5889

"21. The question, which, however, falls for our consideration is as to whether the Labour Court was

justified in awarding reinstatement of the appellants in service.

22. Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the respondent (sic appellants);

the fact that the respondent had stopped its operation of bee farming, and the services of the appellants were

terminated in December 1996, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could have

been directed to be reinstated in service.

23. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required

to be exercised judiciously. Relevant factors therefor were required to be taken into consideration; the

nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job, etc. should weigh with the court

for determination of such an issue.

24. This Court in a large number of decisions opined that payment of adequate amount of compensation in

place of a direction to be reinstated in service in cases of this nature would subserve the ends of justice. (See

Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai [(2006) 11 SCC 684], M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban [(2007) 9 SCC

748] and Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi [(2007) 9 SCC 353])

25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of

Rs. 1,00,000 to each of the appellants, would meet the ends of justice. This appeal is allowed to the

aforementioned extent. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs."

9. The afore-referred two decisions of this Court and few more decisions were considered by us in the case

of Jagbir JT 2008 (3)SC622 Singh V. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board3 albeit in the context of

retrenchment of a daily wager in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act who had worked for

more than 240 days in a year and we observed thus:

"7. It is true that earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if

the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would

ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in long line of

cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an

employee is in contravention to the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been

held to meet the ends of justice."

Therefore, in view of the fore gone discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as discussed above,

Petitioner in the present case is liable to get compensation from the Respondent in lieu of reinstatement in the

employment. The present case is proceeding against the Respondent ex-parte and remained uncontroverted in the

absence of any counter. Therefore, the claim petition of the Petitioner is liable to be allowed partly.

9.

In the present case at the hand, Petitioner has been terminated from service long back in the year 2014.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be apposite to grant the relief of lumpsum compensation

instead of his reinstatement into the employment of Respondent. As per claim of the Petitioner, he was getting

Rs.8000/- per month salary at the time of termination. Therefore, a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-

would be appropriate relief in the present case.

AWARD

In view of the fore gone discussion, the action of the Respondent Indian Security Force, Hyderabad in

terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri Ch. Yadaiah, w.e.f 12.11.2014 is held illegal and unjustified as being

in violation of provision of Sec.25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the oral termination order dated 12.11.2014

of Petitioner from service is hereby set aside. Since Petitioner has been terminated from the service in the year

2014 and a long period has been elapsed since then, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to get a compensation of

Rs.2,00,000(Rupees Two Lakhs only) from Respondent for his illegal termination from service. Thus,

Respondent is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- amount to the Petitioner within two months from

receiving copy of this award, with all attendant benefits due to the Petitioner, failing which he has to pay the

interest of 12% p.a..

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on

this the 23rd day of June, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Ch. Yadaiah

MW1: NIL

5890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of identity card issued by Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex.W2:

Photostat copy of letter dated 16.9.2014 submitted by Petitioner to the Respondent to

enhance his salary

Ex.W3:

Photostat copy of the experience cum salary certificate issued by Respondent dated

26.11.2014

Ex.W4:

Photostat copy of letter dated 29.12.2014 filed by the Respondent before ALC(C)-1, Hyderabad

Ex.W5:

Photostat copy of the reply/rejoinder letter dated 5.1.2015 filed by the Petitioner before

the ALC(C)-I, Hyderabad

Ex.W6:

Photostat copy of letter dated 17.3.2015 filed by the Respondent before ALC(C)-1,

Hyderabad

Ex.W7:

Photostat copy of banker‘s cheque dated 9.9.2015 for Rs.38,674/-

Ex.W8:

Photostat copy of banker‘s cheque dated 9.9.2015 for Rs.2,000/-

Ex.W9:

Photostat copy of Memorandum dated 16.4.2015 stating that the minimum wages

applicable to the workers w.e.f. 1.4.2015 issued by Dy. CLC(C).

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नइ ददल्ली, 8 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1541.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार ईत्तरी ददल्ली नगर जनगम के अयुक्त के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जवक्रम हसह राणा के बीच ऄनुबंध

में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II नइ ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड सं्‍या- 64/2019) को

जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 23.07.2025 को

प्राप्त ुएअ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/180-अइअर (डीयू)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2025

S.O. 1541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court – II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Sh. Vikram Singh Rana, which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 23.07.2025.

[No. L-42025/07/2025/180-IR (DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, No. 2 DELHI

ID No. 64/2019

Sh. Vikram Singh Rana, S/o Sh. Harpal Singh Rana,

Through- The President, MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No. 95, Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi-110011.

VERSUS

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5891

4th Floor Civic Centre, Minto Road,

New Delhi-110002.

Present: Sh. B.K Prasad, Ld. AR for the claimant.

Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. AR for the management.

Award

1. 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 and

Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/225/2018-IR (DU) dated 13.02.2019 has been pleased to refer the

following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal, terms of which are as under:

―Whether non-payment of wages by the management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation to Sh. Vikram

Singh Rana S/o Sh. Harpal Singh Rana, Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-

1500/- revised from time to time attached to the said post with all consequential benefits upto 31.12.2017,

the date of superannuation as per direction of he Hon‘ble High Court vide order dated 27.08.2013 is illegal

and unjustified? If so, what directions are necessary in this respect?‖

In pursuance to the reference, claimant had filed the claim statement stated that he has been employed on Muster

Roll Mali on 21.05.1982. Thereafter, he was initially appointed as regular Mali on 03.01.1985. He had been

performing the duty of an Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1994 till his superannuation up to 31.12.2017 under Rohini

Zone (Horticulture) under North Delhi Municipal Corporation. Management has fixed the different pay scales to

their employees including Mali, Chaudhary etc. in accordance to their job profile. He was not given the grant of

proper pay scale of officiating Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1994 to 31.12.2017 which amount to force labour and the

management is indulging in unfair labour practice. He had got the payment in lower pay scale of Mali Rs. 750-940/-

revised from time to time and he has been denied the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- for his duty performed as

Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1994 revised from time to time. He had stated that Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in the matter

of Jai Chand vs. MCD (CW No. 6514/2001) has disapproved the non-payment vide order dated 02.05.2003 for the

post of Chaudhary. The same stand has been taken by the Hon‘ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the

matter of MCD vs. Sultan Singh & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 7947/2010. As such, he claims that he may be awarded

the payment of Acting Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- revised from time to time to him w.e.f.

01.01.1994 up to his superannuation.

2. Respondent herein has filed the W.S. stating that the claimant does not disclose the correct facts and has filed the

claim without any locus. Workman is not eligible for any kind of relief as prayed by him in the present application

and the said application is nothing but an abuse of process of law and waste of precious judicial time. It has been

submitted by him that workman was promoted as a Chaudhary in September, 2014 and on his retirement he had

already received all the consequential benefit of his retirement. He submitted that there is no such provision in the

rules of the respondent management of giving benefits of acting Chaudhary to the claimant because it is merely a

change of work and administrative arrangement and not a promotion. He further submitted that workman is trying to

misguide the court by showing the internal office record of the management whereas he has no such authority to use

the official documents of the management, the same being for internal use of the management. He had denied that

the management has fixed any pay scale for officiating Chaudhary. However, he had admitted that there are different

pay scales for different posts. He further denied that Mali and Chawkidar who are performing their duty as Acting

Chaudhary were granted the pay scale of Chaudhary. He submitted that claim petition be dismissed.

3. After completion of pleadings vide order dated 14.08.2019, following issues had been framed:

a. Whether the NDMC illegally refused to grant the revised pay scale to the workman w.e.f. 01.01.94 in the post of

acting Choudhary.

b. Whether the management illegally denied such revised pay scale to the workman upto 31.12.2017 the date of his

superannuation ignoring the direction of the Hon‘ble High Court vide order dated 27.08.2013.

c. To what relief the claimant is entitled to.

4. In order to prove its claim, the workman himself had entered into the witness box. He deposed the fact that he was

allotted the work of an Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1994 and performed his duty under Rohini Zone

(Horticulture) till his superannuation up to 31.1.2017. His name has been appearing at Serial No. 25 in the list of

officiating Chaudhary issued by the Dy. Director (Horticulture) West Zone which is Exhibit WW1/1. He submitted

that he is entitled to the wages of Acting Chaudhary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 revised from time to time w.e.f.

01.01.1994 up to 31.12.2017 along with all consequential benefits.

5. Witness was put to the cross-examination where he admitted that he had never lodged any complaint in the office

of the management claiming his unpaid dues which is the subject matter of the present proceeding since he was told

5892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that his matter shall be taken up by the management with the case of similarly placed person. In the year 2014 he has

got the promotion to the post of supervisor from the post of Mali. He had filed the document which has been marked

as Ex. WW1/1. This document was given to him by the management and he did not have the original. He had denied

that the claim has been filed on the basis of false and fabricated document.

6. In rebuttal, one Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Assitant Director (Horticulture), Rohini Zone, MCD has been examined by

the counsel of the management, wherein he had reiterated the facts and mentioned by him in the W.S. He had

admitted that initially he had joined the MCD at the post of Maali. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of

Assistant Director in January, 2024. He admitted that Ex. WW1/1, the list of workmen including the workman in

question who had been shown at Serial No. 25 as Acting Chaudhary. He stated that the list pertain to the west zone.

West Zone was bifurcated and one of the zone was known as Rohini Zone.

7. I have heard the argument at par, perused the record and analyzed the evidence. The whole of the case of the

claimant rest upon the fact that management witness has admitted the list Ex. WW1/1 wherein name of the workman

had been shown at S.No. 25. He was 10th pass, appointed as ―Mali‖ on 03.01.1985 and looking after the work of

Acting Chaudhary w.e.f. 01.01.1994. He had made prayer that considering the above facts on record and in view of

the judgment passed by the Hon‘ble High Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sultan Singh &

others W.P. (C) No. 7947 of 2010, decided on 20.04.2011 where similarly placed person had been given the higher

scale so he be given the pay scale of Acting Chaudhary revised from time to time.

8. While the respondent stand is that the workman‘s service was earlier regularized as Mali in 1985 and he was

promoted in the year September, 2014 and till then he has been paid all the benefit of the Acting Chaudhary. He was

retired in the year 2017 and he had been paid all the benefits therein. He further submits that workman is not entitled

to the benefit for the pay scale of the Acting Chaudhary.

9. Here, it is not disputed that the claimant has not been working as Acting Chaudhary since 1994. MW1 himself

admitted the list issued by management where the name of the claimant has been shown as 10th pass and has been

working as an Acting Chaudhary since 1994. Operating portion of the judgment of Sultan Singh & Others in which

the workman has placed reliance, where in para no. 28, it was observed:

―28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances it is apparent that the claim of the respondents have

always been that they should be paid the difference in pay of Mali/Chowkidar and the Garden Chaudhary

as they were made to work on the post of Garden Chaudhary whereas the petitioner had first denied that

they worked as Garden Chaudharies, then took the plea that the Assistant Director (Horticulture) was not

competent to ask the respondents to work as Garden Chaudharies and that the respondents cannot be

appointed to the post of Garden Chaudharies in accordance with the recruitment rules. There is no doubt

that respondents are not claiming appointment to the post of Garden Chaudharies on account of having

worked on ad-hoc basis on the post of Garden Chaudhary contrary to rules or that some of them not

having the requisite qualifications are entitled for relaxation.‖

10. It is not out of place mention here that even if the claimant herein was not a party in Sultan‟s case referred

above, judgment of Hon‘ble High Court is binding on the management and the management is required to implement

the same. When the workman had been assigned the job of an ‗Acting Chaudhary‘ i.e. a higher post then that of

‗Mali‘ for so long (for the last 20 years), he should have been designated as Acting Chaudhary. However, if that was

not done, then he would also be entitled for the pay scale of an Acting Chaudhary instead of Mali.

11. In the light of above discussion, issue no. 1 decided against the management and in favour of the workman.

Issue no. 2 is also decided against the management and in favour of the workman.

12. In view of the above, workman/claimant is entitled to the pay scale of Acting Chaudhary since 1994 to 2014,

when he was actually promoted to the post. Respondent herein is liable to pay the difference of the wages of Mali

and Acting Chaudhary from the date, when the workman herein was performing duty till he was actually promoted,

management is directed to pay the entire difference of the salary within two months from the date of passing the

award. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as

required under section 17 of the I.D Act, 1947.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding officer

Date: 30.06.2025

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1542.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj मेससड स्ट्टेट बैंक ऑफ हजदराबाद ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5893

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (58/2015-16) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/06/2016-अइअर (बी-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 58/2015-16) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s State

Bank of Hyderabad their workmen.

[No. L-12012/06/2016- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/58/2015-16

Date: 22.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Chief Manager,

M/s State Bank of Hyderabad,

Collectorate Branch, Collector Office Complex,

Distt. – Latur (MS).

2. The Assistant General Manager,

M/s State Bank of Hyderabad,

Distt. – Nanded (MS).

V/s.

Party No.2:

Smt. Taherabee Suleman Sheikh,

R/o Behind Bus Stop, Vitthal Nagar,

Distt. Latur (MS) - 413521

AWARD

(Dated: 22th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the Industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their Workman

Smt. Taherabee Suleman Sheikh for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/06/2016 (IR(B-I) dated 11.03.2016,

with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Latur through its Chief

Manager & Assistant General Manager in terminating the service of Smt. Taherabee Suleman

Sheikh w.e.f.30.01.2015 without following the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the ID Act,

1947 is legal and justified and whether she is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back

wages or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that both parties are not

responding and attending the court since 06/11/2020. Although statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner

but no written statement has been filed by the respondent till today. No other evidence has been filed by petitioner

to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that petitioner is not interested to

contest the case furthermore. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

5894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

―The action of the management of State Bank of Hyderabad, Latur in dismissing the workman Smt.

Taherabee Suleman Sheikh, from Bank service without notice vide its dismissal order dated 30/01/2015

without following the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the ID Act, 1947 is legal and justified‖.

She is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1543.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (03/2019-20) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-अइअर (बी-I)-103]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.03/2019-20) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central

Railway and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-103]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/Appln.03/2019-20

Date: 28.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Divisional Railway Manager

Central Railway, Kingsway Nagpur

2. The Senior Divisional Engineer (Track),

South East Central Railways, Nagpur.

3. The General Manager,

South East Central Railways Bilaspur

4. The Chief Track Engineer,

South East Central Railways, Bilaspur

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri. Vijay Anandrao Lingayat

R/o. Sajivini Nagar, In front of Pantawane College,

Kandri, Kanhan, District:- Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 28th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes

(Amendment) Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in

relation to the management of South Eastern Central Railways & Others and the applicant, Shri. Vijay Anandrao

Lingayat for adjudication vide Case No. CGIT/NGP/Appln.03/2019-20, with the following issues framed: -

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5895

―Whether the action of the management of South Eastern Central Railways in terminating the

workman Shri, Vijay Anandrao Lingayat is legal, fair and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that both parties are not

responding and attending the court since 17/11/2020. Although statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner

but no written statement has been filed by the respondent till today. No other evidence has been filed by petitioner

to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that petitioner is not interested to

contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

―The action of the management South Eastern Central Railways & Others in terminating the

workman Shri, Vijay Anandrao Lingayat is legal, fair and justified. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1544.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj महाराष्ट्र ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (12/2023-24) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-अइअर (बी-I)-104]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 12/2023-24) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of

Maharashtra Gramin Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-104]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/12/2023-24

Date: 15.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Chairman.

Maharashtra Gramin Bank .

HO – Plot # 2, Gut No. 3 (part), Village - Golwadi,

Waluji Mahanagar -IV, CIDCO Aurangabad-431010 (M.S)

2. The Branch Manager,

Maharashtra Gramin Bank,

Branch- Purna, Tah.,Purna, Distt parbhani-431511

V/s.

Party No.2:

Shri. Prabhakar Sudamrao Malhare ,

Sidharth Nager, At Purna, Tah. Purna,

Distt. Parbhani-431511 (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 15th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management Maharashtra Gramin Bank and their workmen Sh.

Prabhakar S. Malhare for adjudication, as per letter No. NGP/7(04)/2023-ID(ALCNGP) dated 20/05/2023, with

the following schedule:-

5896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether the action of the management of Maharashtra Gramin Bank, in terminating Services of

Shri Prabhakar S. Malhare, is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?

2.

Case is called out. Shri. Shardul Gorakshnath Shinde, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of

the respondent today in court and filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record but none is present on behalf of

the petitioner despite service of notices. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties

respectively till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the court

since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not

proved so, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of Maharashtra Gramin Bank, in terminating services of Shri

Prabhakar S. Malhare, is fair, legal and justified. The workmen is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1545.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj एजक्सस बैंक जलजमटेड. ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (08/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-अइअर (बी-I)-105]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Axis Bank Ltd .

and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-105]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/08/2025

Date: 01.07.2025.

Party No.1

:

The Director,

M/s. Seven-S Banking Management

Consultancy Services (P) Ltd.,

104 Eco Heights, Shree Nityanand Society,

Swamy Nityanand Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai-440069.

:

The Managing Director,

Axis House, 7th Floor, C-2 Wadia International Centre,

Pandukar Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025.

Versus

Party No.2

:

The General Secretary,

Maharashtra Sanghathit Asanghathit Kamgar Sabha ,

(HMS), Matrusmruti, At & PO- Vavi,

District Nashik-422203.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5897

AWARD

(Dated: 1st July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Axis Bank and one other and their union

Maharashtra Sanghathit Asanghathit Kamgar Sabha(HMS) for adjudication, as per letter No.NGP/8(03)/2025-ID

(RLCNGP) dated 28.05.2025, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the contractor M/s. Seven-s Banking management consultancy services (P)

ltd. And the management of Axis Bank Ltd., Mumbai through its managing director in not

transferring the workman namely Shubham Tavide, Sagar Godkale, not granting advance to

Rajendra Sonawane and Kamalakar Shinde and not posting the activists of other unions as

supervisors are legal and justified? If not, to what relief the union i.e. Maharashtra Sanghatit and

Asanghatit Kamgar sabha is entitled to?‖

2.

On receipt of the reference, notices were issued to the parties i.e. the union ―Maharashtra Sanghatit and

Asanghatit Kamgar sabha‖, (―the union‖ in short) and the management of M/s. Seven-s Banking consultancy

services (P) Ltd., and M/s. Axis Bank Ltds, (―party no.1‖ in short). Today is the 1st date of the case in which the

petitioners has to file their statement of claim, but instead of statement of claim one Shri Suryakant Bagal appeared

before the court and file an application mentioning that the workman therein the reference i.e. Shri Shubham

Tavide and Rejendra Sonawane have left the Axis Bank and the grievances of the remaining workman i.e. Shri

Sagar Godkale and Kamalakar Shinde are resolved. Hence the above reference does not exist and requested to

close the matter.

As the petitioner union requested to close the reference an award is passed against the petitioner.

Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

―The action of the contractor M/s. Seven-s Banking management consultancy services (P) ltd. And

the management of Axis Bank Ltd., Mumbai through its managing director in not transferring the

workman namely Shubham Tavide, Sagar Godkale, not granting advance to Rajendra Sonawane and

Kamalakar Shinde and not posting the activists of other unions as supervisors are legal and justified. The

union is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1546.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj सेंरल बैंक ऑफ आंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (04/2021-22) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2025-अइअर (बी- II)-28]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2021-22) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Centrl Bank

of India and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2025- IR(B-II)-28]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/Appl./04/2021-22

Date: 03.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India, Regional

Office, P-63, MIDC, Satpur,

Nashik.

5898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The Field General Manager,

Appellate Authority, Central Bank

Of India, Zonal Office, 314, M.G.

Road, Pune, 411001.

3. The Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

At Post Nimbhora, Taluka Raver,

District Jalgaon 425506.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Dilip S/o Late Rupchand Warke,

R/o At Post Nimbhora, Taluka, Raver,

District – Jalgaon 425506.

AWARD

(Dated: 03rd July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes

(Amendment) Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in

relation to the management of Central Bank of India and the applicant, Dilip S/o Late Rupchand Warkey, for

adjudication, vide case no. CGIT/NGP/Appl./04/2021-2022, with the following issues framed:-

―Whether the action of the management/Central Bank of India in terminating the workman Shri.

Dilip S/o Rupchand Warke is legal, fair and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?‖

2.

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

07.07.2022. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively. No

other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long

back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So,

it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management/Central Bank of India in terminating the workman Shri. Dilip S/o

Rupchand Warke is legal, fair and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1547.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ृंजाब एंड हसध बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (57/2014-15) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/67/2014-अइअर (बी- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.57/2014-15) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpu as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjb & Sind

Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/67/2014- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5899

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/57/2014-15

Date: 10.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Zonal Manager,

Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office,

LBS Marg, Vikroli(West)

MUMBAI – 400083.

2. The General Manager (HRD),

Punjab & Sind Bank , Head Office,

5th Floor, Bank House, 21, Rajendra Place,

New Delhi – 110008.

3. The Branch Manager,

Punjab & Sind Bank , 16, Central Avenue Road,

Nagpur – 440018.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Rajinder Singh S/o Pritam Singh Arjani,

R/o A-4, Sadguru Apartment, 621, Kashmiri Gali,

Nagpur – 440017.

AWARD

(Dated: 10th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the Industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Punjab & Sindh Bank and their Workman Shri

Rajinder Singh S/o Pritam Singh for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/67/2014 (IR(B-II) dated 05.01.2015,

with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sindh Bank in dismissing the workman Shri

Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh Arjani, from Bank service without notice vide its dismissal

order dated 19/07/2011 and in not paying the subsistence allowance from 2009 upto 31/10/2011

(Date of retirement) to the workman by the bank management is legal, proper and justified, and if

not, to what relief, the workman is entitled and what other direction are necessary in the matter?‖

2.

Case is called out. Shri. P. V. Mahant Learned counsel for the respondent is present before the court.

None is present on behalf of petitioner. From perusal of record it is apparent that today only Learned Counsel for

Respondent is present before the court. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the

parties respectively. But petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. petitioner is not coming to the

court since 04.03.2021 long back. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim

of the petitioner is not proved. So it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

―The action of the management of Punjab & Sindh Bank in dismissing the workman Shri Rajinder

Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh Arjani, from Bank service without notice vide its dismissal order dated

19/07/2011 and in not paying the subsistence allowance from 2009 upto 31/10/2011 (Date of retirement) to

the workman by the bank management is legal, proper and justified. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.‖

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1548.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ृंजाब नेिनल बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

ds iapkV (36/2013-14) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/43/2013-अइअर (बी- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

5900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.36/2013-14) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab

National Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/43/2013- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/36/2013-14

Date: 02.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The General Manager & Appellate Authority,

Personnel Administration Division, Head Office,

07-Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.

2. The Circle Head & Disciplinary Authority,

Punjab National Bank, Circle Office,

Kingsway, Nagpur.

Nagpur-440001

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Mahendra, S/o Eknath Shinde

Room No. 13, Hambardekar Chawl,

Bhusawal, Distt. Jalgaon

Jalgaon-425201.

AWARD

(Dated: 02th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Personnel Administration Division, Head Office,

and their workman Shri. Mahendra Eknath Shinde, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/43/2013 (IR(B-II)

dated 12.06.2013, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the then Regional Manager & disciplinary authority, Punjab National

Bank, Nagpur in imposing the penalty of ―dismissal from service‖ on Shri Mahendra Eknath

Shinde, Clerk/Typist, vide his order dated 26.06.2000 without awaiting the result of criminal appeal

filed before the Session Judge, Jalgaon and the refusal dated 30.01.2003 of the then Sr. Regional

Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nagpur to reinstate Shri Mahendra Eknath Shinde in the service

after acquittal order dated 22.02.2002 of Session Judge, Jalgaon; and rejection of the appeal by the

General manager & appellate authority, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vide their order dated

30.11.2010 are just fair & legal? What relief the applicant is entitled to?‖

2.

Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent/management Shri. J. L. Bhoot is present before the

Court. But none is present on behalf of the petitioner. From perusal of record, it is apparent that petitioner is not

coming to the Court since 28.02.2020 i.e. near about more than 5 years. Although statement of claim and written

statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has also filed his affidavit as an evidence. But

petitioner is not coming to the Court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as the contents of the statement

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5901

of claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court

since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not

proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the then Regional Manager & disciplinary authority, Punjab National Bank, Nagpur

in imposing the penalty of ―dismissal from service‖ on Shri Mahendra Eknath Shinde, Clerk/Typist, vide

his order dated 26.06.2000 without awaiting the result of criminal appeal filed before the Session Judge,

Jalgaon and the refusal dated 30.01.2003 of the then Sr. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Nagpur

to reinstate Shri Mahendra Eknath Shinde in the service after acquittal order dated 22.02.2002 of Session

Judge, Jalgaon; and rejection of the appeal by the General manager & appellate authority, Punjab National

Bank, New Delhi vide their order dated 30.11.2010 are just fair & legal. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1549.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/72/2014-15)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/99/2014-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/72/2014-15)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025.

[No. L-22012/99/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/72/2014-15

Date: 03.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Sub Area Manager,

WCL, Neeljay South Sub Area,

Post: Belora, Tah. Wani,

Distt. Yavatmal-445105.

2. The Chief General Manager,

WCL, Wani Area,

Post: Urjagram Tadali,

Distt. Chandrapur(MS)-445304.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The Secretary,

All India SC/ST/BC Class Employees

Coordination Council, Ramnagar Colony,

Ghugus, Chandrapur (MS)-442505.

AWARD

(Dated: 03rd Jully, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL, Neeljay South Sub Area, and their

5902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

union/All India SC/ST/BC Class Employees, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/99/2014 (IR(CM-II))

dated 19.02.2015, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the demand of union raised vide their representation No. WCL/SC/ST/ BC.Emp./ Vase/

109(3) dated 01/03/2013 (Annexure enclosed) is just, fair or legal? If yes, to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled to?‖

2.

Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. Mayur Mainde is present before the Court.

None is present on behalf of the petitioner. Although statement of claim and written statement have been filed by

the parties respectively. But petitioner is not responding and attending the court since 30.01.2020 i.e. near about

more than five years. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming

to the Court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the

petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The demand of union raised vide their representation No. WCL/SC/ST/BC.Emp./Vase/109(3) dated

01/03/2013 (Annexure enclosed) is unjust, unfair or illegal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1550.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/53/2013-14)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/114/2013-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/53/2013-14)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025

[No. L-22012/114/2013 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/53/2013-14

Date: 11.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Sub Area Manager,

Ballarpur Colliery ¾ pits

Ballarpur Area of WCL, PO; Ballarpur,

Distt. Chandrapur

CHANDRAPUR (M.S)-442401

V/s.

Party No.2:

Sh. Lomesh Khartad General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur,

Distt. Chandrapur

CHANDRAPUR(M.S.)-442401

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5903

AWARD

(Dated: 11th Jully, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of WCL and their workmen Shri Ravikant, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/114/2013 (IR(CM-II)) dated 03/09/2013, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur Colliery 3/4 Pits of Ballarpur Area of

Western Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri Ravikant the dependant son of late

Shri Amraj Devkrupa who has already put more than 40 years service, which is contrary to the

provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?

2. Case is called out. Learned counsel Shivani Kulkarni has put in appearance on behalf of respondent and filed

the memo of appearance today in court. Which is taken on the record, but none is present on behalf of the

petitioner. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the petitioner is not responding and attending to the court

since 19/07/2018 i.e. for more than 6 years. Although, statement of claim and written statement have been filed by

the parties respectively. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the court

since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not

proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of Ballarpur Colliery 3/4 Pits of Ballarpur Area of Western

Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri Ravikant the dependent son of late Shri Amraj Devkrupa

who has already put more than 40 years service, which is contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA

is legal & justified. The Union is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1551.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj वेस्ट्टनड कोलफील्ड्स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/41/2015-16)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/87/2015-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/41/2015-16)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025

[No. L-22012/87/2015 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/41/2015-16

Date: 01.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The General Manager,

M/s Western Coalfields Limited,

Ballarpur Area, PO: Chandrapur

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur(M.S) 441215.

5904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The Sub Area Manager,

Gouri Sub Area of Western Coalfields Ltd.,

Post Gouri, Tah. Bhadrawati,

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur(M.S.)-441215.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The Vice President,

All India SC/ST/OBC Employees Coordination Council

D-64, Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440001.

AWARD

(Dated: 01th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of M/s. Western Coalfields Limited, and their

workman Shri. Hiralal Tukaram, through union/All India SC/ST/BC Class Employees Coordination Council, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/87/2015 (IR(CM-II) dated 23.12.2015, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the demands raised by Shri Hiralal Tukaram, applicant for correction in date of birth on

the basis of School Certificate or sending his case to Medical Board for determination of his age and

demands supported by the Vice President, SC/ST/OBC Employees Co-ordination Council is just fair or

legal? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖

2.

Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri. R.E. Moharir is present before the Court but

no one is present on behalf of the petitioner.

From perusal of record, it is apparent that petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since

26/02/2020 i.e. near about more than 5 years. Although, statement of claim and written statement have been filed

by the parties respectively. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as an evidence but petitioner is not coming to the Court

to prove the contents of affidavit as well as the contents of statement of claim. No other evidence has been filed by

the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that, he is not

interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The demands raised by Shri Hiralal Tukaram, applicant for correction in date of birth on the basis

of School Certificate or sending his case to Medical Board for determination of his age and demands

supported by the Vice President, SC/ST/OBC Employees Co-ordination Council is unjust, unfair or illegal.

The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1552.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/31/2018-19)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/94/2016-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5905

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/31/2018-19)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025

[No. L-22012/94/2016 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/31/2018-19

Date: 11.07.2025.

Party No.1:

1. The Sub Area Manager,

Chanda Rayatwari Colliery,

Western Coalfields Ltd.

Post Rayatwari, Distt – Chandrapur,

Pin – 442404.

V/s.

Party No. 2: The Zonal Secretary,

Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association

Ward No 10, Gudi, PO ; Palachaurai Distt -Chhindwara,

Pin – 480449.

AWARD

(Dated: 11th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the Industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their Workman

Shri Abdul Saieed Shaikh for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/94/2016(IR(CM-II) Dated; 22/06/2018, with

the following schedule:-

―Whether the issue raised by Zonal Secretary, Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association,

Chhindwara (MP) in his representation dated 21-02-2014 (Annexure-II) is justified and legal? If yes,

Whether the action of the management of Western Coalfields Limited, Chanda Rayatwari Colliery,

Chandrapur Area, post Rayatwari, Distt. Chandrapur in denying employment to the dependent Shri Abdul

Saieed Shaikh son of Shri Abdul Wahid Shaikh, Ex- Assistant Lamproom Incharge is justified and legal? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?‖

2.

Case is called out. Learned Counsel Shivani Kulkarni has put in appearance on behalf of respondent and

filed her memo of appearance, which is taken on record. But none is present on behalf of petitioner, dispite service

of the notices. From perusal of record it is apparent that petitioner is not responding and attending the court since

05/09/2018. After service of notices no statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties

respectively till today. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to

contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The issue raised by Zonal Secretary, Coal Mines Engineering Workers Association, Chhindwara (MP) in his

representation dated 21-02-2014 (Annexure-II) is unjustified and illegal. The workmen is not entitled to

any relief.

The action of the management of western coalfields Limited. Chanda Rayatwari Colliery, Chandrapur Area,

post Rayatwari, Dist Chandrapur in denying employment to the dependent Shri Abdul Saieed Shaikh son of

Shri Abdul Wahid Shaikh, Ex- Assistant Lamproom Incharge is justified and legal. The workmen is not

entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

5906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1553.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj वेस्ट्टनड कोलफील्ड्स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/28/2013-14)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/42/2013-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/28/2013-14)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025

[No. L-22012/42/2013– IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/28/2013-14

Date: 11.07.2025

Party No.1:

1.

The Sub Area Manager,

Dhoptala Sub Area of Ballarpur

Area of WCL, Post – Sasti, Distt. Chandrapur,

Pin – 442905.

V/s

Party No.2:

The General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur,

Post – Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur,

Pin – 442701.

AWARD

(Dated: 11th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workman

Shri Ajay Mozes, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/42/2013-IR(CM-II) dated 29.05.2013, with the

following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the Management of Dhoptala Sub Area of Ballarpur Area of Western

Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri Ajay the dependent son of Shri Mozes Mathai

Sunar of Sasti/UGMines of Dhoptala Sub Area of WCL who has already put in 35 years service and

retired on 31.01.2011 which is contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified?

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

2.

Case is called out. Learned Counsel Shivani Kulkarni has put in appearance on behalf of respondent and

filed her memo of appearance, which is taken on record. But none is present on behalf of petitioner.

From perusal of the record it is apparent that petitioner is not responding and attending the court Since

01/05/2020 i.e. more than five years. Although, statement of claim and Written statement have been filed by the

parties respectively. Petitioner has also filed his evidence as an affidavit, but petitioner has not come to the court to

prove the contents of the claim as well as affidavit.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5907

It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it

is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the Management of Dhoptala Sub Area of Ballarpur Area of Western Coalfields Limited in

denying employment to Shri Ajay the dependent son of Shri Mozes Mathai Sunar of Sasti/UGMines of

Dhoptala Sub Area of WCL who has already put in 35 years service and retired on 31.01.2011 which is

contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1554.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/19/2021-22)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/48/2021-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/19/2021-22)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025

[No. L-22012/48/2021 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/19/2021-22

Date: 18.07.2025

Party No.1: 1. मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ,

वेकोलल, कन्हान, क्षेत्र,

डुंगररया, लजला, ल ंदवाड़ा – 480449.

V/s

Party No.2:

अध्यक्ष,

राष्ट्रीय कोयला खदान मज़दूर संघ (इंटक),

चांदामेटा, लजला - ल ंदवाड़ा - 480449.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workman

Shri S.K. Vaishya, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/48/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 21.10.2021, with the

following schedule:-

‘‘क्या वेकोलि कन्हान क्षेत्र प्रबंधक द्वारा कममकार श्री एस. के. वैश्य से जूलनयर कममकार को उनसे

(श्री एस. के. वैश्य) से पहिे पदोन्नत कर, श्री एस. के. वैश्य को चीफ फामामलसस्ट टी एण्ड एस ग्रेड ए -

1 पदोनत नहीं लकया जाना न्यायोलचत है ? यलद नहीं तब श्री एस. के. वैश्य लकस अनुतोष के

हऺदार है’’ ?

5908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, petitioner is not

responding and attending the court Since 01.03.2022. Although, statement of claim and written statement have been

filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner Sh. S.K. Vaishya has sent a letter to the President Rashtriya Koyla

Khadan Mazdoor Sangh dt. 02.10.2023 with the intention to withdraw this case as his matter is under consideration

for his promotion before the department. That is why Petitioner is not coming the Court since long back. No other

evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

वेकोलि कन्हान क्षेत्र प्रबंधक द्वारा कममकार श्री एस. के. वैश्य से जूलनयर कममकार को उनसे (श्री एस. के. वैश्य) से

पहिे पदोन्नत कर, श्री एस. के. वैश्य को चीफ फामामलसस्ट टी एण्ड एस ग्रेड ए - 1 पदोनत नहीं लकया जाना

न्यायोलचत है कामगार लकसी भी राहत का हऺदार नही है |

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1555.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj वेस्ट्टनड कोलफील्ड्स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/11/2023-24)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2025-अइअर (सी.एम-II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/11/2023-24)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025.

[No. L-22013/01/2025– IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/11/2023-24

Date: 14.07.2025.

Party No.1:

The Sub Area Manager,

Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area,

PO – Lalpeth, Distt. – Chandrapur,

Pin – 442507.

V/s.

Party No.2:

Mangaldas Bajirao Rangari,

R/o Sister Colony, Near Reliance Mobile

Tower, Naginabag Ward, Chandrapur,

Pin – 442404.

AWARD

(Dated: 14th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5909

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management Western Coalfields Limited their workmen

Sh. Mangaldas B. Rangari for adjudication, as per letter No. NGP/1(01)/2023-ID(ALCCHP) dated 20.05.2023,

with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area,

Chandrapur Area of WCL in terminating services of their workman Shri Mangaldas B. Rangari

without considering his medical conditions, is fair, legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent despite service of notices. From perusal of record, it is apparent

that both parties are not responding and attending the Court since 27.09.2023. No statement of claim and written

statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his

case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case

further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Sub Area, Chandrapur

Area of WCL in terminating services of their workman Shri Mangaldas B. Rangari without considering his

medical conditions, is fair, legal and justified. The workmen is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1556.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/07/2021-22)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22013/01/2025-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/07/2021-22)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025

[No. L-22013/01/2025 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/07/2021-22

Date: 02.07.2025.

Party No.1:

The Manager,

M/s Sainik Mining and Allied Services Limited,

Room No. 30, Makardhokda-III,

Camp Office, Gram, Hewati, Post Udasa,

Tah. Umred, Distt-Nagpur-441204.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The Secretary,

Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,

WCL Umrer Area, House No. IB/156.

Tah. Umred, Distt-Nagpur-441204.

5910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

(Dated: 02th Jully, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of M/s Sainik Mining & Allied Services Limited.,

and their workman Shri. Chandramohan Das, Shri Indramani Shukla, Shri Santosh Bamne, Shri Atahar Ansari,

Shri Ajaykumar Rajbhar, Shri Devendramani Shukla and Shri Ramavatar Kashyap, for adjudication, as per letter

No. N-8(01)/2021-ID/IR dated 17.03.2021, with the following schedule:-

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Sainik Mining and Allied Services Limited, Room

No. 30, Makardhokda-III, Camp Office, Gram: Hewati, Post Udasa, Tah. Umred, Distt-Nagpur through the

Manager in terminating the workmen i.e. (i) Shri Chandramohan Das, Driver, (ii) Shri Indramani Shukla,

Driver (iii) Shri Santosh Bamne, Driver, (iv) Shri Atahar Ansari, Driver (v) Shri Ajaykumar Rajbhar,

Driver (vi) Shri Devendramani Shukla, P.C. Operator & (vii) Shri Ramavtar Kashyap, Supervisor/Driver

from the service from March‘ 2020 and not paid the salary of the Covid-19 Period are just, fair & legal? If

not, to what relief the concerned workman/union is entitled to?‖

2.

Case is called out. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that both parties are not

responding and attending the Court since 26.11.2021. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed

by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner

is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more.

Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s Sainik Mining and Allied Services Limited, Room No. 30,

Makardhokda-III, Camp Office, Gram: Hewati, Post Udasa, Tah. Umred, Distt-Nagpur through the

Manager in terminating the workmen i.e. (i) Shri Chandramohan Das, Driver, (ii) Shri Indramani Shukla,

Driver (iii) Shri Santosh Bamne, Driver, (iv) Shri Atahar Ansari, Driver (v) Shri Ajaykumar Rajbhar,

Driver (vi) Shri Devendramani Shukla, P.C. Operator & (vii) Shri Ramavtar Kashyap, Supervisor/Driver

from the service from March‘ 2020 and not paid the salary of the Covid-19 Period are just, fair & legal. The

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1557.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj वेस्ट्टनड कोलफील्ड्स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/06/2014-15)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/08/2014-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/06/2014-15)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025

[No. L-22012/08/2014 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5911

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/06/2014-15

Date: 11.07.2025

Party No.1:

1.

The Manager,

WCL, Kanhan Area, Dungaria,

PO: Dungaria, Ghorawadi Khan,

Chhindwara – 480553.

V/s

Party No.2:

The Joint Mahamantri,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh(INTUC),

Shramik Shakti Bhawan, PO: Chandametta,

Chhindwara – 480447.

AWARD

(Dated: 11th July, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workman

Shri Sukhdev, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/08/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 09.05.2014, with the

following schedule:-

‘’क्या कामगार श्री सुखदेव लपता भुगर, भू० पू बैल्ट क्लीनर, घोरावाडी कािरी नं. 1 को लनयोजक के

अस्पताि के प्रालधकृत लचलकत्सालधकारी द्वारा लदनांक 08.05.2013 से 30.06.2013 तक स्वीकृत

लचलकत्सालधकारी अवकाश का भुगतान महाप्रबन्धक, वेस्टनम कोिफील्ड्स लिलमटेड कन्हान क्षेत्र लजिा

ल ंदवाड़ा द्वारा नहीं लकया जाना न्यायोलचत है ? यलद नही तो कममकार क्या अनुतोष पाने का अलधकारी

है?

2.

Case is called out. Learned Counsel Shivani Kulkarni has put in appearance on behalf of respondent and

filed her memo of appearance, which is taken on record, but none is present on behalf of petitioner.

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that petitioner is not responding and attending the court Since

23/04/2020. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No

other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long

back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So,

it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

‘’कामगार श्री सुखदेव लपता भुगर, भू० पू बैल्ट क्लीनर, घोरावाडी कािरी नं. 1 को लनयोजक के अस्पताि के

प्रालधकृत लचलकत्सालधकारी द्वारा लदनांक 08.05.2013 से 30.06.2013 तक स्वीकृत लचलकत्सालधकारी अवकाश का

भुगतान महाप्रबन्धक, वेस्टनम कोिफील्ड्स लिलमटेड कन्हान क्षेत्र लजिा ल ंदवाड़ा द्वारा नहीं लकया जाना न्यायोलचत

है कामगार लकसी भी राहत का हऺदार नही है |

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 11 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1558.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj वेस्ट्टनड कोलफील्ड्स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

] नागृुर ds iapkV

(सीजीअइटी/एनजीृी/04/2018-19)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/8/2018-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

5912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025

S.O. 1558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/04/2018-19)of the Central Government Industrial

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

Management of Western Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 08/08/2025.

[No. L-22012/8/2018 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/04/2018-19

Date: 02.07.2025.

Party No.1:

The Area General Manager,

Western, Coalfields, Limited,

Umrer Area, Post: Umrer Project, Distt,

Nagpur-441204.

V/s.

Party No.2:

The President/General Secretary,

Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS), Regional Office,

B-53, WCL Colony, Umred, Distt.

Nagpur-441204.

AWARD

(Dated: 02th Jully, 2025)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of Western Coalfields Limited., and their workman

Shri. Amarsingh Rai, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/8/2018 (IR(CM-II) dated 03.04.2018, with the

following schedule:-

―Whether the demand of the Union namely Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS) in non-granting

promotion to the post of Crane Operator Excavation Special Grade from the post of Crane

Operator Excavation Grade ‗A‘ in respect of Shri Amarsingh Rai of Umrer Area through DPC

held by the management of W.C.L. Umrer is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

Union is entitled to and from which date?‖

2.

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

29.07.2024 and thereafter 27.09.2024 and 13.12.2024.

From perusal of record, it is apparent that statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the

parties respectively. Petitioner has also filed his affidavit as an evidence. But petitioner is not coming to the Court

to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as the contents of the statement of claim. No other evidence has been

adduced by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It appears that,

he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The demand of the Union namely Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS) in non-granting promotion to the

post of Crane Operator Excavation Special Grade from the post of Crane Operator Excavation Grade ‗A‘

in respect of Shri Amarsingh Rai of Umrer Area through DPC held by the management of W.C.L. Umrer is

illegal and unjustified. The Union is not entitled to any relief.

Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 12 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1559.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5913

-

सह

-

] असनसोल

ds iapkV (

26/2001) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/318/2000-अइअर (सी.एम- II)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025

S.O. 1559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/08/2025.

[No. L-22012/318/2000 – IR (CM-II)]

SALONI, 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. 26 OF 2001

PARTIES: Rajkumar Singh

Vs.

Management of Madhabpur Colliery, ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman:

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management of ECL:

Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

18.06.2025

AWARD

In exercise of power 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-22012/318/2000-IR(C-II) dated 02.08.2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between

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

their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

― Whether the action of the management of Madhavpur Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sh. Rajkumar

Singh, Pit Clerk from services w.e.f. 15.5.93 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to ? ‖

1.

On receiving Order No. L-22012/318/2000-IR(C-II) dated 02.08.2001 from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 10.09.2001/

19.11.2001 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.

2.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the then General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on

20.02.2002 on behalf of Rajkumar Singh, the dismissed workman of Madhabpur Colliery under Kajora Area of

Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). In brief, the fact of the case disclosed in the written

statement of the union is that Rajkumar Singh was a permanent employee of ECL and was working as an

Attendance Clerk at Madhabpur Colliery. On 15.05.1993 he was dismissed from his service without observing

necessary formalities as per standing orders of the company and without holding any enquiry. Further case of the

union is that on 14.05.1993 an incident took place in connection with which he was charged by the management

5914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

but no Charge Sheet was issued and without holding any domestic enquiry the workman was dismissed form his

service on the basis of a prima facie enquiry. No second Show Cause Notice was issued to the workman which is a

mandatory requirement as per a decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India. It is contended that Rajkumar

Singh has no involvement in the case for which he was dismissed and urged that the order of dismissal issued

against him is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Union has prayed for re-instatement of the workman

with full back wages.

3.

Management initially did not file any written statement and the case was fixed up for ex-parte hearing.

Thereafter management filed written statement on 25.03.2003. According to the management of ECL, Rajkumar

Singh while on duty had taken a Dumper bearing No. WB39-1501 loaded with eight tons of coal from Madhabpur

Colliery and he himself drove the Dumper towards the railway crossing of Kajoragram where he was caught by the

security guard of railway site. For the aforesaid act of misconduct Rajkumar Singh was chargesheeted by the

management under Clause 17(i)(a), 17(i)(i) and 17(i)(q) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the Mine. The

workman submitted reply to the Charge Sheet but as the reply was not satisfactory a domestic enquiry was ordered

against him and the Enquiry Officer held the enquiry in which the workman participated. Reasonable opportunity

was given to the workman to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer observed the principles of natural justice and

after concluding the enquiry proceeding submitted his report before the Appointing Authority. The charge of

misconduct was duly proved against Rajkumar Singh. After careful consideration of the Charge Sheet, Enquiry

Proceeding, Enquiry Report and other connected papers, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman

from service. Management contended that the contents of paragraph no. 3 of the written statement filed by the

union is incorrect and that the workman was not dismissed without holding any enquiry. Management denied that

the workman was dismissed from service without service of Charge Sheet and without holding any domestic

enquiry. According to the management dismissal of the workman is totally justified and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4.

Rajkumar Singh has been examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He has filed affidavit-in-chief wherein

he stated that on 14.05.1993 he was on duty in the second shift from 04.00 PM to 12.00 AM at Madhabpur

Colliery. After completing his duty, he was proceeding towards his quarters at Khas Kajora Colliery, Madhabpur

Railway siding on the way to his quarter at Khas Kajora Colliery. At about 12 at night when he reached the

Railway Crossing at Kajoragram he saw a Dumper was intercepted. He was held up at that place without knowing

the fact and was handed over to the police and subsequently forwarded to the Jail. It is contended that the

management did not take any action against the driver who was on duty and drove the Dumper, leaving it at the

Railway Crossing. Further case of the workman is that the management decided to dismiss him on the same date

i.e., on 15.05.1993 without holding any enquiry and without giving him any opportunity to defend his case before

the Enquiry Officer. The dismissed workman contended that management dismissed him from service on the basis

of prejudice and no second Show Cause Notice was issued to him as per guidelines issued by the Coal India

Limited. The workman averred that the order of dismissal passed against him is illegal and unjustified.

5.

Management cross-examined the witness where he deposed that Police lodged an FIR against him and

submitted Charge Sheet after investigation and the case is pending before the Court at Durgapur. Witness further

deposed that since he was in custody he never appeared in any Domestic Enquiry. It transpires from the evidence

that he received Charge Sheet from the management through the Jail Authority and after his release from jail he

submitted an application before the management regarding non-supply of Charge Sheet and other documents.

Witness denied that he has been rightly dismissed by the management and volunteered that he was dismissed while

he was in custody.

6.

From the record as well as order dated 02.07.2013 it appears that management did not adduce any

evidence in this case after several opportunity granted to them. On the date of hearing of argument, the order of

dismissal dated 15.05.1993 has been admitted by both parties and marked as Exhibit W-1.

7.

The moot question in this case is whether the dismissal of workman from service under ECL is

sustainable under the law. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

8.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that the workman has been dismissed form service

without holding any enquiry. The allegation against him was theft of 8 tonnes of coal, taken away by the workman

with the help of a Dumper on 14.05.1993. The workman was arrested and was kept in jail custody for about a

month till he was released on bail. The management without issuing any Charge Sheet and without holding any

enquiry against him dismissed him from service on the very next date vide order dated 15.05.1993 (Exhibit W-1).

The union representative urged that such act of dismissal of workman is arbitrary, violative of the principles of

natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside.

9.

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL admitted that the management is unable to

produce any Charge Sheet or Enquiry Proceeding on the basis on which the order of dismissal was passed by the

General Manager. It is submitted that the workman committed theft in respect of the employer‘s property and he

was found guilty of the charge under Clause 17(i)(a) of Model Standing Orders. It is argued that the workman is

not entitled to any relief in this case as he has committed a criminal offence.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5915

10.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the union

representative and learned advocate of the management. It is undisputed that Rajkumar Singh was working as

Attendance Clerk at Madhabpur Colliery and he was dismissed from his service by order dated 15.05.1993, issued

by the General Manager, Kajora Area bearing No. KA:PM:C-6:10/387/2188, in which he has stated that Rajkumar

Singh had allegedly taken Dumper No. WB39-1501 loaded with 8 tonnes of coal from Pit No. 2 of Madhabpur

Colliery and drove towards the Railway Crossing of Kajoragram and that he was caught with the Dumper by

Security Guard Mr. Rajdeo Ahir and Md. Daud Khan of Madhabpur Colliery who were on duty at Madhabpur

Colliery Siding. On receipt to the report, the Agent, Madhabpur Colliery appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct

the enquiry into the alleged misconduct. It is further stated in the order of dismissal that the enquiry was conducted

in presence of Rajkumar Singh and statements were recorded. The Enquiry Officer thereafter submitted his report

and after going through the Enquiry Report it was found that Rajkumar Singh committed the misconduct under

Clause 17(i)(a), 17(i)(i) and 17(i)(q) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the company. It is further stated

that after careful consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, connected papers and gravity of misconduct,

the General Manager dismissed the workman. No Charge Sheet, Enquiry Proceeding has been produced by the

management to establish that a proper enquiry proceeding was held before the workman was found guilty of the

charge. There is no iota of evidence to indicate that the workman had opportunity to represent his case. Under such

facts and circumstances, I hold that the dismissal of Rajkumar Singh on the strength of letter KA:PM:C-

6:10/387/2188 dated 15.05.1993, issued by the General Manager, Kajora Area is arbitrary and found unsustainable

under the law and in violation of principles of natural justice. The workman having been dismissed in an illegal

manner is entitled to be reinstated. It is appropriate to set aside the order of dismissal dated 15.05.1993. The

workman is entitled to be reinstated in service within two (2) months from the date of communication of the

Award, if has not attained the age of superannuation till date. It transpires from the materials in record and

admission of the workman that he was in jail custody and a criminal case is pending against him. The workman has

not rendered service to the employer company since 15.05.1993. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant him full

back wages for the period he remained idle. It is found appropriate to grant him twenty percent (20%) of his back

wages from 15.05.1993 till his reinstatement in service or superannuation, whichever is earlier.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Madhabpur Colliery under

Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The order of dismissal of Rajkumar Singh, Pit Clerk of Madhabpur

Colliery is set aside. Management of ECL is directed to reinstate the workman within two (2) months from the date

of communication of the Award, if the workman has not attained the age of superannuation in the meantime. The

management shall also pay back wages to the workman at the rate of twenty percent (20%) from 15.05.1993 till his

reinstatement or superannuation whichever is earlier. 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, Govt. of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 12 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1560.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

esa

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-I ds iapkV (

60/2004) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/57/2004-अइअर (सी.एम-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025

S.O. 1560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/08/2025.

[No. L-22012/57/2004 – IR (CM-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

5916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

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

Reference Case No. 60/2004

Employer in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri Rishi raj Meena, Asstt. Manager (Legal).

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 14/07/2025

AWARD.

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

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

No.L-20012/57/2004-IR(C-I) dated 28/06/2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Bastacolla Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Secretary, Bihar Colliery

Kamgar Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Kuya Colliery of M/s BCCL, Bastacolla Area, P.O.-Jharia,

Distt. Dhanbad in not providing employment to Smt. Ladi Rajwarin. Wife of late Dasrath Rajwar, Pump

Khalasi, P.No. 01198613 as per the provision of N.C.W.A. is proper and justified? If not, to what relief is the

said dependent wife of the deceased workman entitled?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/57/2004-IR(C-I) dated 28/06/2004 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 60 of 2004 was registered on 12.07.2004 and

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

with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. After issuance of regd. notice, written statement has been filed by Sri K. Chakraborty, Ld. Advocate on

behalf of the workman. Sri U.N. Lal, Ld. Advocate appeared from the side of the management and filed his letter

of authority on 17.02.2005. It further transpires that written statement and rejoinder has been filed by the

management but when the case record was put up after a long gap, registered notices were again sent but neither

the workman nor the management appeared before this Tribunal, though on 20.06.2025, Sri Rishi Raj Meena,

Asstt. Manager (Legal) for the management appeared.

4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpires that the workman never appeared before this Tribunal from

15.02.2006, which shows that the workman has lost his interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice,

this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5. Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 12 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1561.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5917

esa

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-I ds iapkV (

48/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/195/2006-अइअर (सी.एम- I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025

S.O. 1561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/08/2025.

[No. L-22012/195/2006 – IR (CM-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

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

Reference Case No. 48/2006

Employer in relation to the management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- None.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 14/07/2025

AWARD.

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

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

No.L-20012/195/2005 (IR(CM-I)) dated 01/06/2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Vice President, Jharkhand

Mazdoor Sangh, Jharia, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Bhowra Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri

Manoj Bouri of Bhowra(S) Colliery of M/s. BCCL from service w.e.f. 31.7.2000 is justified? If not,

to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/195/2005 (IR(CM-I)) dated 01/06/2006 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 48 of 2006 was registered on 20.06.2006

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

along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. After issuance of notice, Sri K.N. Singh, Representative on behalf of the workman appeared on 14.08.2006 but

no one appeared on behalf of the management. The case record shows that after a long gap the regd. notices were

issued to both parties on 20.12.2021 and Sri K.N. Singh, Representative of the workman appeared but thereafter

failed to appear. However management never appeared before this Tribunal since 2006.

5918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA AUGUST 16, 2025/SHRAVANA 25, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. It transpires from the case record that both the parties neither appeared before the Tribunal since the year

2022 nor any step were taken on their behalf which makes it clear that they have lost their interest in this case and

therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5. Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 12 ऄगस्ट् त, 2025

का.अ. 1562.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-I ds iapkV (

27/2007)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/18/2007-अइअर (सी.एम- I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025

S.O. 1562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

CCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 11/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/18/2007 – IR (CM-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

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

Reference Case No. 27/2007

Employer in relation to the management of Argada Area of M/s CCL, Hazaribagh.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- None.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 14/07/2025

AWARD.

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

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

No.L-20012/18/2007 (IR(CM-I)) dated 03/05/2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Argada Area of M/s. CCL and their workman through President, Jharkhand Colliery

Mazdoor Union, Argada for adjudication by this Tribunal:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ऄगस्ट् त 16, 2025/श्रावण 25, 1947

5919

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the Management of Argada Area of M/s CCL in denying regularization as

Time Rated Category-1 worker to Smt. Samarji Devi, piece rated worker, is justified and legal? If

not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from which date?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/18/2007 (IR(CM-I)) dated 03/05/2007 Government of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 27 of 2007 was registered on 03.07.2007

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

along with relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. Even after issuance of notice, none appeared from either side. The case record shows that after a long gap the

regd. notices were issued to both parties on 06.01.2022 but even then no one appeared. Thereafter again regd.

notices were issued to both the parties on 30.05.2025 and the same was returned with endorsement ―Insufficient

Address‖.

4. It transpires from the case record that both the parties neither appeared before the Tribunal since the year 2007

nor any step were taken on their behalf which makes it clear that they have lost their interest in this case and

therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5. Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

GORAKHA NATH

YADAVA

Digitally signed by GORAKHA

NATH YADAVA

Date: 2025.08.30 11:13:34 +05'30'