5335 GI/2025
(5921)
रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजिक
WEEKLY
सं. 32]
नई दिल् ली, अगस्ट् त 17 —अगस्ट् त 23, 2025, िजनवार/भाद्र 1, 1947
No. 32]
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 17––AUGUST 23 , 2025, SATURDAY/BHADRA 1, 1947
इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मत्रांलय
(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्ट्त 2025
का.आ. 1563.—भारतीय जनयाात-आयात बैंक अजिजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की िारा 6 की उप-िारा (1)
के खंड (ड.) के उप-खंड (ii) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एति् द्वारा, श्री एम.वी. राव के स्ट्थान
पर श्री रिनीि कनााटक, प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं मुख्य कायाकारी अजिकारी, बैंक ऑफ इंजडया को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले
आिेिों तक भारतीय जनयाात-आयात बैंक (एजजिम बैंक) के जनिेिक मण्डल मे जनिेिक के पि पर नाजमत करती िै।
[फाा. सं. 9/1/2022-आईएफ-I]
अजनल कुमार, अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-30082025-265823
CG-DL-W-30082025-265823
5922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 23, 2025/ BHADRA 1, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 18th August, 2025
S.O. 1563 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (ii) of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section
6 of the Export-Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (No. 28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates
Shri Rajneesh Karnatak, MD & CEO, Bank of India, as Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of
India (Exim Bank), with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri M V Rao.
[F. No. 9/1/2022-IF-I]
ANIL KUMAR, Under Secy.
(व्यय जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 20 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1564. —केन् द्र सरकार, एति् द्वारा रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग)
जनयमावली, 1976 के जनयम 10 के उप-जनयमों (2) एवं (4) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय लेखापरीक्षा एवं लेखा जवभाग के
प्रिान मिालेखाकार (लेखापरीक्षा), के कायाालय मेघालय, जिलांग जिसमें अस्ट् सी प्रजतित से अजिक कमाचाररयों ने हिंिी का
कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को अजिसूजचत करती िै।
[फाा. सं. ए-12034/03/2025-ईिी]
रामेश् वर कुमार, अवर सजचव
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025
S.O. 1564.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rules (2) and (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages
(Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the Principal
Accountant General (Audit), Meghalaya, Shillong under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department wherein eighty per
cent. of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. A-12034/03/2025-EG]
RAMESHWAR KUMAR, Under Secy.
जविेि मन्त्रालय
(सी. पी. वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1565.—रािनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2
के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैिाजनक आिेि।
एति् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, अगस्ट्त 18, 2025 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवािन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय
जमिनों/पोस्ट्टों में सिायक कांसुलर अजिकाररयों के रूप में इस मंत्रालय के नीचे उजल्लजखत अजिकाररयों की जनयुजि करता
िै:
क्रम
सं.
अजिकारी का नाम और पि
जमिन / पोस्ट्ट जिसमें सिायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के
रूप में जनयुि दकया गया िै
1
श्री मोजित पंवार,सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास,रीगा,लातजवया
2
श्री अहनंद्य बनिी,सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास, जसओल
3
श्री सतीि कुमार मौया,सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास,बाकू
4
श्री अंदकत िमाा, वैजिक सिायक
भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, मेिान
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 23, 2025/ भाद्र 1, 1947
5923
5
श्री लवमीत, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, िुबई
6
सुश्री िीतल, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
7
श्री िैकब िॉिा, वैजिक सिायक
8
श्री रमन िीप हसंि, वैजिक सिायक
9
श्री सुनील कौल,सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास, िानोई
10
श्री वैभव राणा, सिायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय उच्चायोग, माल्टा
[फाा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(34)]
नबा कुमार पाल, जनिेिक (सीपीवी)
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 18th August, 2025
S.O. 1565.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned
officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular services
with effect from August 18, 2025:
S.
No
Name & Rank of the Officer
Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant
Consular Officer
1
Shri Mohit Panwar, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Riga, Latvia
2
Shri Anindya Banerjee, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Seoul
3
Shri Sateesh Kumar Maurya, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Baku
4
Shri Ankit Sharma, Personal Assistant
Consulate General of India, Medan
5
Shri Lovemeet, Assistant Section Officer
Consulate General of India, Dubai
6
Ms. Sheetal, Assistant Section Officer
7
Shri Jacob George, Personal Assistant
8
Shri Raman Deep Singh, Personal Assistant
9
Shri Sunil Koul, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Hanoi
10
Shri Vaibhav Rana, Assistant Section Officer
High Commission of India, Malta
[F. No.T.4330/01/2025 (34)]
NABA KUMAR PAL, Director (CPV)
श्रम और रोिगार मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1566.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj वेस्ट्टना कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
] नागपुर ds iapkV
(सीिीआईटी/एनिीपी/47/2015-16)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[सं
,y-22012/110/2015-
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025
S.O. 1566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/47/2015-16)of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
5924
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 23, 2025/ BHADRA 1, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-22012/110/2015 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Deputy Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/47/2015-16
Date: 11.07.2025.
Party No.1:
1. The General Manager,
Wani North Area, Western Coalfields Limited,
Post Bhalar, Teh. Wani,
Distt. Yavatmal – 445304
V/s.
Party No.2:
The Working President
Koyala Shramik Sabha(HMS), Ward No. 1
Tilaknagar, Wani, Tah: Wani
Distt. Yavatmal - 445304
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 WCL and their Workman Shri Sukhranjan Nikunj
Biswas for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/110/2015 (IR(CM-II)) dated 20/01/2016, with the following
schedule:-
“Whether the demands raised by Shri Sukhranjan Nikunj Biswas, 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 the demands supported by the Working President, Koyla Sharmik Sabha (HMS), at Wani,
Yavatmal is just fair & Legal ? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
2.
Case is called out. Rutej R. Pimpalkhute Learned counsel put in appearance on behalf of respondent today in
court and filed his vakaltnama which is taken on record but none is present on behalf of the petitioner. From perusal
of record, it is apparent that the petitioner is not responding and attending the court since 04/03/2020. 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 to prove his case, but petitioner has not come to the court to prove the
contents of the affidavit as well as contents of the statement o claim. Petitioner is not coming to the court since long
back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. claim of the petitioner is not proved. So it is
closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
“The demands raised by Shri Sukhranjan Nikunj Biswas, applicant for correction in date of birth on
the basis of School Certificate or sending his case of Medical Board for determination of his age and the
demands supported by the Working President, Koyla Sharmik Sabha (HMS), at Wani, Yavatmal is unjust
unfair & illegal. The Workman is not entitled to any relief.’’
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1567.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टना कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सि
–
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 23, 2025/ भाद्र 1, 1947
5925
] नागपुर ds iapkV (सीिीआईटी/एनिीपी/11/2021-22)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं- ,y
22012/28/2021-vkbZ-vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025
S.O. 1567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/11/2021-22)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-22012/28/2021–IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/11/2021-22
Date: 11.07.2025
Party No.1: 1. The Supdt. Of Mines/Manager,
WCL, Walni Mines, Kamptee Sub Area,
Tah. – Kamptee, Distt. – Nagpur - 441404.
2. The Dy. C.M.E/ Manager,
WCL, Sillewara Colliery, At/Post: Sillewara,
Tah. – Saoner, Distt. – Nagpur - 441107.
3. The Sr. Manager (Mines)/ Mine Manager,
WCL, Sillewara Mines, At & Post: Sillewara,
Tah. – Saoner, Distt. – Nagpur – 441107.
V/s.
Party No.2: 1. Sh. Moinuddin S/o Mohammad Hasan Siddiqui,
R/o Plot No. 184, House No. – 1650, Sayeed Nagar,
Ranala, Kamptee, Distt. – Nagpur – 441001.
2. The Branch Secretary,
AB Incline Branch, INTUC Union,
Chankapur Colony, Qtr. No. 143/4, Tah. – Saoner,
Distt. – Nagpur – 441109.
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
Moinuddin S/o Mohammad Hasan Siddiqui, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/28/2021-IR(CM-II) dated
19.07.2021, with the following schedule:-
“Whether the action of the respondents/management i.e.1) Western Coalfields Ltd., Walni Mines,
Kamptee Sub Area, Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur through its Supdt. Of Mines/Manager,2) Western
Coalfields Ltd., Sillewara Colliery, At & Post: Sillewara, Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur through its Dy
C.M.E/Manager&3) Western Coalfields Ltd., Sillewara Mines, At & Post: Sillewara, Tah. Saoner,
5926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 23, 2025/ BHADRA 1, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
distt. Nagpur through its Sr. Manager (Mines)/ Mine Manager in not restoring the pay scale category
and grade and not releasing the difference of arrears of wages with all consequential benefits with
interest @18% per annum in respect of the workman Shri Moinuddin S/o Mohammad Hasan Siddiqui
is just, fair & legal? If not, as to what relief the workman/Union is entitled to?”
2.
Case is called out. Learned Counsel Abhishek Sunil Deshpande has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent and filed his 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 coming to Court Since 28/09/2021 i.e. near about
more than three years. 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 respondents/management i.e.1) Western Coalfields Ltd., Walni Mines, Kamptee Sub Area,
Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur through its Supdt. Of Mines/Manager,2) Western Coalfields Ltd., Sillewara
Colliery, At & Post: Sillewara, Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur through its Dy C.M.E/Manager&3) Western
Coalfields Ltd., Sillewara Mines, At & Post: Sillewara, Tah. Saoner, distt. Nagpur through its Sr. Manager
(Mines)/ Mine Manager in not restoring the pay scale category and grade and not releasing the difference of
arrears of wages with all consequential benefits with interest @18% per annum in respect of the workman Shri
Moinuddin S/o Mohammad Hasan Siddiqui is just, fair & legal. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1568.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]
dsUnzh; ljdkj वेस्ट्टना कोलफील््स जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
सि
–
]
नागपुर ds iapkV (सीिीआईटी/एनिीपी/03/2014-15)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/26/2014-vkbZ vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th August, 2025
S.O. 1568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the
Central Government hereby publishes the Award (CGIT/NGP/03/2014-15)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-22012/26/2014 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/03/2014-15
Date: 11.07.2025
Party No.1:
1.
The Manager,
WCL, Kanhan Area, Dungaria,
PO: Dungaria, Ghorawadi Khan,
Chhindwara – 480553.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 23, 2025/ भाद्र 1, 1947
5927
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-22012/26/2014-IR(CM-II) dated 09.05.2014, with the following
schedule:-
''क्या प्रबंधक, घोडावाड़ी खदान, वेस्टनन कालफील्ड्स लललिटेड कन्हान क्षेत्र ल ंदवाड़ा द्वारा कािगार श्री
सुखदेव लिता भुगर, भू० िू ० टब लोडर बैल्ट क्लीनर, घोडावाड़ी खदान, को लदनांक 02.01.2010 से
30.06.2013 तक लबना लकसी कारण के ड्यूटी िर जाने की अनुिलत न प्रदान करना उलित है ? यलद नही
तो कािगार क्या अनुतोष िाने 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
28/01/2022. Although, statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner. No written statement has been filed by the
management till date. 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
'' प्रबंधक, घोडावाड़ी खदान, वेस्टनन कालफील्ड्स लललिटेड कन्हान क्षेत्र ल ंदवाड़ा द्वारा कािगार श्री सुखदेव
लिता भुगर, भू० िू ० टब लोडर बैल्ट क्लीनर, घोडावाड़ी खदान, को लदनांक 02.01.2010 से 30.06.2013
तक लबना लकसी कारण के ड्यूटी िर जाने की अनुिलत न प्रदान करना उलित है कािगार लकसी भी राहत
का हक़दार नही है
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1569.—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
-
सि
-
] िनबाि-I ds iapkV (
31/2020) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
22013/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj
(सी.एम-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th August, 2025
S.O. 1569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2020) 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-22013/01/2025 – IR (CM-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
5928
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 23, 2025/ BHADRA 1, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT NO.1
DHANBAD
ID Case No. 31/2020
Sri Binod Kumar Manjhi
Vill-Beratand, P.O.- Bastora
Dist.- Bokaro,………………………….…………………………………....................................Applicant
Vs.
The General Manager
Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
P.O- Kusunda
Dist-Dhanbad.………………………………………………………………....... Opposite Party
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For Applicant
:- Sri Pintu Mandal, Representative.
For Opp. Party
:- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:- Coal
Dated 14/07/2025
AWARD
2. This case has been filedunder section 2A of the I.D Act, 1947 by the applicant/workman namely Binod Kumar
Manjhi on 08.06.2020 against the order of his dismissal dated 01.06.2019 from his service by the General
Manager,Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 01.06.2019 and reinstatement
with full back wages and consequential benefits.
3.
The brief facts of the case of the applicant is that he was permanent employee of M/s. BCCL and was
posted at Dhansar/Industry Colliery as General Mazdoor having personnel no. 01464957. His wife was suffering
from illness and he also became sick from 12.12.2018 to 19.02.2019 and due to the same he could not be able to
attend his duty. Further after recovery from his sickness, he reported for duty on 20.02.2019 but the management
did not allow him to resume his duty and issue charge sheet no. 300 dated 03.01.2019 illegally. After receiving the
charge sheet, the applicant submitted his reply and denied the allegations levelled against him, although the
explanation submitted by him was satisfactory but even then the management initiated departmental proceeding
against him by appointing Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer conducted domestic enquiry in utter
violation of the principle of natural justice and submitted a perverse report and relying on the same, the
disciplinary authority issued him a second show cause notice on 08.05.2019. The applicant submitted his
explanation to the second show cause notice on 14.05.2019 but without considering the same, the disciplinary
authority imposed the penalty of dismissal which is shockingly disproportionate and illegal vide order dated
01.06.2019. After the dismissal, the applicant preferred an appeal on 11.07.2019 under order 30 of the Certified
Standing Order, but the management did not dispose of his appeal as per the provision. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the petitioner raised an industrial dispute u/s 2A before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Dhanbad but due to adamant attitude of the management the Conciliation Officer issued a letter
to the workman to file petition u/s 2A and therefore, he has filed the present application. The dismissal of the
workman is illegal and unjustified on the following grounds:-
a) That the petitioner absented from his duty due to illness from 12.12.2018 to 19.02.2019. The above absence was
beyond his control.
b)
The petitioner reported for duty on 20.02.2019 but he was not allowed to resume duty.
c)
The opposite party kept his application for resumption of duty pending and issued charge sheet on
03.01.2019, although the petitioner had not committed any misconduct as stated in the Certified Standing Order of
the company.
d)
The opposite party in utter violation of the principle of natural justice, dismissed the petitioner without
giving him any opportunity to defend himself.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 23, 2025/ भाद्र 1, 1947
5929
e)
The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is not fair and proper. The enquiry report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer is perverse.
f)
The order of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and in view of the matter dismissal is bad in law and
the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages.
The workman has raised the issue
“Whether the action of the management of Dhansar/Industry Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL
in dismissing Sri Binod Kumar Manjhi, Ex-General Mazdoor vide dismissal letter dated 01-06-2019, is legal and
justified? And if not to what relief the workman concerned Sri Binod Kumar Manjhi is entitled?”
At last it has been submitted that the action of the management in dismissing the workman is neither legal
nor justified and sought the relief to set aside the order of dismissal dated 01.06.2019, pass an order for
reinstatement of the workman concerned with full back wages and other consequential benefits and pass any other
order as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
4.
The case of the workman was admitted, notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared before the
Tribunal and filed written statement cum rejoinder dated 18.12.2020, submitting therein that the present petition of
the workman is not maintainable by the law and facts. The applicant Binod Kumar Manjhi was appointed on
compassionate ground on 16.12.2013 and posted at ADI Colliery. His date of birth as per the record is 06.01.1988.
It has further been stated that since the appointment the applicant was habitual absentee. Several times the
management imposed minor punishment for unauthorized absence from duty. The punishment imposed is
mentioned below –
Period of absence
Punishment
16-08-2016 to 24-10-2016
Strong warning
11-07-2017 to 04-11-2017
Stoppage of one increment
19-02-2018 to 04-07-2018
Stoppage of one increment
02-11-2018 to 03-12-2018
Strong warning
It has further been stated that the petitioner has absented himself from his duty w.e.f 12.12.2018 without
information and permission of the management. The absence without permission and information is misconduct
according to CSO No. 26.1.1 of the BCCL. As the petitioner has committed misconduct, the management issued
him charge sheet vide charge sheet dated 03.01.2019. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found
satisfactory and therefore, the management appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry. Enquiry
Officer conducted the same in presence of petitioner and submitted his report holding therein that the allegation
levelled against him in the charge sheet, is proved. The management issued second show cause notice to the
petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory. The disciplinary authority
considering the past record of the petitioner and finding that there is no chance of improvement, dismissed him
from the service of the company vide letter dated 01.06.2019. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is
fair, proper and in accordance with principle of natural justice. The dismissal of the petitioner is legal and justified
and he is not entitled to get any relief. It has further been submitted to decide the fairness of the domestic enquiry
in a preliminary hearing and if it is found that the enquiry is not fair and proper, allow the management to adduce
evidence to prove the charges.
In the rejoinder it has been submitted that the statement made in Paragraph 5(i) of the application of the
workman is a matter of record. He has submitted that the workman never completed 240 days attendance in any
calendar year. The statement made in Paragraph 5(ii) of the application is not correct. It is pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner is habitual absentee and he is making only lame excuse. The statement made in Paragraph
5(iii) of the application is not correct. The explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The statement
made in Paragraph 5(iv), (v) and (vi) of the application, are not correct. The statement made in paragraph 5(vii)
and 5(viii) of the application of the applicant, are not relevant. The ground mentioned in Paragraph 5(ix) and its
sub paragraphs are not correct and relevant at all. The petitioner was habitual absentee and several times
management provided him opportunity to mend himself but in spite of that he has committed same misconduct.
The statement made in paragraph 6 of the application is matter of record. The statement made in paragraph 7 of the
application is not correct. The dismissal of the workman is legal and justified and he is not entitled to get relief.
The relief sought by the applicant in paragraph 8 of the application is not correct. He is not entitled to get any relief
and at last it was prayed to hold that the dismissal of Sri Binod Kumar Manjhi, is legal and justified and he is not
entitled to get any relief.
5.
To prove his case, the applicant/workman has adduced the following documentary evidence:-
Exhibit W-1- Xerox copy of dismissal letter/order dated 01.06.2019.
5930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 23, 2025/ BHADRA 1, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Exhibit W-2- Xerox Copy of application for joining report dated 20.02.2019.
Exhibit W-3- Xerox copy of Medical Certificate dated 19.02.2019.
Exhibit W-4- Xerox copy of 2nd Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2019.
Exhibit W-5- Xerox copy of Mercy Appeal dated 03/11.07.2019 before General Manager, Kusunda Area
No. 6, BCCL.
Exhibit W-6- Xerox copy of application raising industrial dispute u/s 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947 before
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad dated 28.11.2019.
Exhibit W-7- Xerox copy of first page of passbook of the Bank Account of the workman, Binod Kumar
Manjhi.
On the other hand, the management has adduced the following documentary evidence to prove its case.
Exhibit M-1- Office Order of the Punishment of censure dated 13/14.11.2016.
Exhibit M-2- Office Order of the Punishment of stoppage of one increment dated 05.12.2017.
Exhibit M-3- Office Order of Punishment of stoppage of one increment dated 22/23.08.2018.
Exhibit M-4- Office Order of the Punishment of warning dated 06.12.2018.
Exhibit M-5- Xerox Copy of charge sheet dated 03.01.2019.
Exhibit M-6- Reply of the charge sheet.
Exhibit M-7- Notice of Enquiry dated 25.04.2019.
Exhibit M-8- Enquiry Proceeding.
Exhibit M-9- Enquiry Report dated 05.05.2019.
Exhibit M-10- 2nd Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2019.
Exhibit M-11- Reply of 2nd Show Cause Notice by the workman dated 14.05.2019.
Exhibit M-12- Note sheet dated 22/23.05.2019.
Exhibit M-13- Xerox copy of Dismissal order dated 01.06.2019.
6.
Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
7.
The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant Binod Kumar Manjhi who was
permanent employee of M/s. BCCL and his wife fell ill from 12.12.2018 to 19.02.2019 and therefore he could not
attend his duty and therefore on 20.02.2019 he reported the management of BCCL with Medical Fitness Certificate
to resume his duty but he was not allowed rather he was issued charge sheet dated 03.01.2019 illegally. It has
further been submitted that the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, has been admitted as fair and
proper u/s 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947 by filing application before this Tribunal dated 24.03.2021 but the dismissal
of the workman from his serviceis shockingly disproportionate and therefore, considering that the workman is very
poor and he has to support his family, it was prayed to show sympathy and set aside the dismissal order and
reinstate him even without back wages.
On the other hand the Ld. Counsel of the management has submitted that the applicant is a habitual
delinquent and even earlier on four different occasions i.e. from 16.08.2016 to 24.10.2016, 11.07.2017 to
04.11.2017, 19.02.2018 to 04.07.2018 and 02.11.2018 to 03.12.2018 he had absented himself from his duty
without any information and without permission of the management and he was given the punishment as strong
warning and stoppage of one increment and thus he is habitual absentee therefore, if any mercy is shown on the
workman, that will be a misplaced mercy and the order of dismissal is quite legal and proportionate and as per the
law and the case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.
8.
After hearing the rival submissions of both the parties and perusing the materials on record the Tribunal
finds that the following two issues are necessary to be decided:-
(i)
Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper?
(ii)
Whether the action of the management of Dhansar/Industry Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s BCCL
in dismissing Sri Binod Kumar Manjhi, Ex-General Mazdoor vide dismissal letter dated 01-06-2019, is legal and
justified? And if not to what relief the workman concerned Sri Binod Kumar Manjhi is entitled?
As regards the first issue, the applicant/workman by filing application dated 24.03.2021, has accepted and
admitted the enquiry report against him as fair and proper u/s 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947 and accordingly the
Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2021 also held that the enquiry against the applicant was fair and proper and thus
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 23, 2025/ भाद्र 1, 1947
5931
by admitting the enquiry report as fair and proper the workman has accepted that he remained absent from
12.12.2018 to 19.02.2019 from his duty without giving any prior information or taking permission of the
management which comes under the category of misconduct vide Certified Standing Order No. 26.1.1 of the
BCCL (Exhibit M-5).
Now, the second issue for consideration is whether the punishment imposed on the workman is legal and
justified or disproportionate, in this regard the documentary evidence of the workman which has been marked as
Exhibit W-1, shows that this is dismissal order dated 01.06.2019 from the service of the applicant/workman, Binod
Kumar Manjhi, General Mazdoor, Dhansar Colliery and on its perusal it is evident that the workman has been
dismissed from his service on the ground of being habitual absentee and in the same order it has been described
that on four earlier occasions also, the workman remained absent from his duty without any prior information and
permission by the management and these are from 16.08.2016 to 24.10.2016 for which he has been given strong
warning for absence from his duty for about two months, from 11.07.2017 to 04.11.2017 for which his one salary
increment was stopped due to absence from his duty for about four months, from 19.02.2018 to 04.07.2018 for
which he was given punishment of stoppage of one salary increment for being absent for about five months, from
02.11.2018 to 03.12.2018 he was given punishment of strong warning for absence from his duty for about one
month and again in the instant case he remained absent from 12.12.2018 to 19.02.2019 without any information
and permission of the management and remained absent for about two months and seven days and in view of the
repeated and habitual absence of the applicant from his duty, ultimately he was dismissed by the management.
As regards other documentary evidence of the workman, Exhibit W-2 is anapplication for joining dated
20.02.2019, Exhibit W-4is the second show cause notice dated 08.05.2019, Exhibit W-5 is the mercy appeal dated
03.07.2019 before General Manager, Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL, Exhibit W-6 is an application for raising the
Industrial Dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad and Exhibit W-7 is the photo copy of the first
page ofpass book of the Bank Account of the workman but all these documents are not going to help the applicant
in any way.
Now as regards the Medical Certificate which is Exhibit W-3, on its perusal it transpires that Dr. M. Prasad has
certified on 19.02.2019 that the workman Binod Kumar Manjhi was suffering from Jaundice and weakness from
12.12.2018 to 19.02.2019 whereas the applicant/workman has himself stated in his rejoinder petition that he
remained absent from his duty due to the illness of his wife and at the same time Exhibit M-6 and M-11 which is
reply of the charge sheet and reply of 2nd show cause notice of the applicant Binod Kumar Manjhi, he has himself
written in his own writing that his wife fell ill in his village and due to the same he could not perform his duty thus,
these documents reveal that the ground of defence of the workman regarding his absence is self contradictory.
As regards the documentary evidences of the management, Exhibit M-1 to M-4 are the office order dated
13/14.11.2016, 05.12.2017, 22/23.08.2018 and 06.12.2018 by which the workman Binod Kumar Manjhi has been
earlier punished due to his absence from his duty without information and prior permission, so these documents
reveal that the workman has been habitual absentee from his duty. Exhibit M-5 is the charge sheet dated
03.01.2019 issued by the management against the applicant Binod Kumar Manjhi. Exhibit M-6 is the reply of
charge sheet dated 03.01.2019 and Exhibit M-11 is the reply of second show cause notice and in both these hand
written documents the applicant has taken the defence that his wife was ill. Exhibit M-7 is notice of enquiry,
Exhibit M-8 is enquiry proceeding, Exhibit M-9 is enquiry report. Exhibit M-13 is the dismissal order of the
applicant which has also been submitted by the applicant and marked as Exhibit W-1 in his favour. Exhibit M-10 is
a second show cause notice and Exhibit M-12 is a note sheet.
9.
The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has relied on and cited the authority of the Hon’ble Karnataka High
Court reported in 2018 LLR 507 (Mr. A Lokesh Vs. M/s. Otto Bliz (India) Pvt. Ltd.) in which the Hon’ble
Court has been pleased to hold that “Punishmentof dismissal from service on account of sickness supported by
medical certificate is not justified.” but here in the instant case the facts and circumstances are completely different
and it has already been proved by the rejoinder petition of the applicant as well as Exhibit M-6 and M-11 of the OP
that thedefence of sickness of the applicant on the ground of his Medical Certificate, is quite contradictory and
discrepant as he has claimed in Exhibit M-6 and M-11 that he remained absent due to illness of his wife and on the
other hand he has submitted the Medical Certificate of his own sickness and therefore, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the above authority of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court is not applicable in the present facts and
circumstances of the case of the applicant.
On the other hand,on perusal of the authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court incase of Maan Singh vs Union
of India, reported in AIR 2003 supreme court 1800,it is evident that habitual absenteeism without leave is
sufficient to provide major punishment of dismissal.
In another case namely Om Prakash Vs State of Punjab &Ors reported in(2011) 14 SCC 682, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that habitual absentee without leave does not deserve any sympathy from the
court.
5932
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 23, 2025/ BHADRA 1, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
Considering the above facts, circumstancesand evidence available on the case record (Ext. W-1,Ext. W-3,
Ext. M-6 and Ext.M-11, Ext. M-1 to Ext. M-4, Ext. M-13) and hearing both sides as also considering the above
quoted authorities of the Hon’ble supreme court, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the action of dismissal
of the workman Binod Kumar Manjhi by the management of Dhansar Colliery under Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL
vide dismissal order dated 01.06.2019, is legal and justifiedand is quite proportionate to the repeated incorrigible
misconduct committed by the workman and there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the workman to avoid
the punishment of dismissal from service and therefore, this application of the applicant/workman is liable to be
dismissed.
11.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the application of the applicant Binod Kumar Manjhi filed u/s 2A of I.D. Act 1947, is hereby dismissed on
contest. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of
India, New Delhi for information and notification.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1570.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
िजक्षण मध्य रेलवे 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 (a49/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं
-12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-106]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2025.
S.O. 1570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.49/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of South Central Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-1)-106]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 14th day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 49/2024
Between:
Sri M Srikanth,
H.No. 26-95/11/3, Balramnagar,
Plot No. 167, Safilguda,
Malkajgiri, Secunderabad-500047.
..…. Petitioner
AND
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Electrical (TRSO) Branch,
Annex. To Sanchalan Bhavan,
S.C Railway, Secunderabad-500071.
… Respondents
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का रािपत्र : अगस्ट् त 23, 2025/ भाद्र 1, 1947
5933
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Shri Macharla Rangaiah, advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Ravinder Viswanath, advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/29/2024-B1 dated 18/10/2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of South Central Railway and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of South Central Railway, Secunderabad in dismissing the services
of Sri M. Srikanth, Ex-Technician-IIELS/LSD is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 49/2024 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite sufficient
opportunity on Petitioner but none present on behalf of Petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Petitioner and non-
filing of claim statement by the Petitioner, the case is ‘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 14th 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
नई दिल्ली, 14 अगस्ट्त, 2025
का.आ. 1571.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
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 (a28/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं
,y-12025/01/2025- vkbZ vkj (ch-I)-107]
सलोनी, उप जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 14th August, 2025.
S.O. 1571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and
their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-1)-107]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
5934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :AUGUST 23, 2025/ BHADRA 1, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dated the 10th day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 28/2021
Between:
Smt. Nayani Pradhan,
W/o Sri Anil Apato,
R/o Plot No. 62, Sai Baba
Officers colony, Sainikpuri,
Secunderabad-500094.
..…. …. Petitioner
AND
1. The Assistant General Manager (Law),
State Bank of India, Gun Foundry,
Hyderabad-500001.
2. The Chief General Manager (IR),
State Bank of India, Head Office,
Amaravathi Gunfoundary,
Hyderabad-500001.
3. The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, Commerical
Branch, Surya Towers,
Secunderabad-500003.
….Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : Shri G. Udayasri, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Y. Ranjeeth Reddy, advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its No. 7(22)/2021-B1 dated 10.03.2021 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. State Bank of India, and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Hyderabad in terminating the services on the
grounds of absenteeism of Smt. Nayani Pradhan, Ex- employee is legal and justified. If not, what relief the workmen
is entitled to?’
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 28/2021 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2.
Petitioner absent. Respondent refused to adduce any evidence. Hence Respondent evidence closed.
Perused the record. The claim of petitioner has not been substantiated by any evidence. Hence, a Nil 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 10th 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
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 11:18:30 +05'30'