5628 GI/2025

(5943)

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. 34]

नई ददल् ली, अगस्ट् त 31—जसतम् बर 6, 2025, िजनवार/भाद्र 9—भाद्र 15, 1947

No. 34]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 31—SEPTEMBER 6, 2025, SATURDAY/BHADRA 9– BHADRA 15, 1947

इस 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—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवदेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 3 जसतम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 1584—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि।

एतद् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, जसतम्बर 03, 2025 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनववहन करने के जलए जवदेि में भारतीय

जमिनों/ृोस्ट्टों में सहायक कांसुलर अजधकाररयों के प ृ में इस मंत्रालय के नीचे उजल्लजखत अजधकाररयों की जनयुजि करता

हज:

क्रम

सं.

अजधकारी का नाम और ृद

जमिन / ृोस्ट्ट जजसमें सहायक कांसुलर अजधकारी के

प ृ में जनयुि दकया गया हज

श्री ओमप्रकाि राबड़,सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारतीय दूतावास, अबु धाबी

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-15092025-266110

CG-DL-W-15092025-266110

5944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्री चजतन्य यादव,सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारतीय दूतावास, कोनाक्री

श्री रोजहत गुप्ता,सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास, न्यूयॉकव

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(35)]

नबा कुमार ृाल, जनदेिक (सीृीवी)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2025

S.O. 1584.—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 September 03, 2025:

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

Shri Omprakash Rabad, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi

Shri Chaitanya Yadav, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Conakry

Shri Rohit Gupta, Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India, New York

[F. No. T.4330/01/2025 (35)]

NABA KUMAR PAL, Director (CPV)

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग(

नई ददल्ली, 27 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1585. —केंद्रीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्रीय

अजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज् य सरकार

की अजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ. (एमएस.) सं. 43/2025/गृह, ददनांक 02.03.2025, गृह (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम

(एस.आर.ओ.सं्‍या-239/2025) के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से श्री दकरण ृी.ृी., प्रबंध साझेदार, मेससव कजररक्स

ल्यूजमनजन््स &सोलर जसस्ट्टम्स, श्री अजय मोहन, श्री दीृक धमावृालन और श्री आगस्ट्टीन चैंडी मेससव कजररक्स ल्यूजमनजन््स

& सोलर जसस्ट्टम्स के साझेदारों, और अज्ञात लोक सेवकों और अन्य, यदद कोई हो, के जवरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संजहता की

धाराएँ 120बी सृर त धाराएं 420 और 468, 471 सृर त धाराएं 468, 406 और 409 तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजधजनयम, 1988 की धारा 13 की उृधारा (2) सृर त धारा 13 की उृधारा (1) का खण्ड (सी) & धारा 13 की

उृधारा (1) का खण्ड (डी) के अंतगवत दंडनीय अृराधों और उसके मूल अृराधों तथा उि अजधजनयम के तहत दंडनीय

अृराधों को काररत करने और इस मामले के संदभव में, संृूणव केरल राज्य के अंदर, उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न उसी संव्यवहार में

काररत दकन्हीं अन्य अृराधों का अन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/64/2025

एवीडी

II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5945

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 27th August, 2025

S.O. 1585.—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.43/2025/HOME, dated 02.03.2025, Home

(M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O.No. 239/2025),hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the wholeState of Kerala for investigation of offences

punishable under section 120B read with sections 420 and 468,471 read with sections 468, 406 and 409 of Indian

Penal Code and sub section (2) of Section 13 read with clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 13 & clause (d) of sub

section (1) of section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and substantive offences thereof against Shri Kiran

P.P., Managing Partner, M/s CatrixLuminants& Solar Systems, Shri Ajay Mohan, Shri Deepak Dharmapalan and Shri

Augustine Chandy Partners of M/s CatrixLuminants& Solar systems, and unknown public servants and others, if any,

for commission of offences punishable under the said Acts and any other offense 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. 228/64/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 23 मई, 2025

का.आ. 1586.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

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

-

सह -

] चंडीगढ़ -2 ds iapkV (

73/2018) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं.एल- 23012/132/2018- vkbZ-vkj-lh.,e-II]

मजणकंदन.एन, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 23rd May, 2025

S.O. 1586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 73/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

BBMB and their workmen received by the Central Government on 17/04/2025.

[No. L-23012/132/2018– IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present: Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer.

ID No.73/2018

Registered on:-11.12.2018

Lekh Ram son of Sh. Gokal Ram, R/o Village Rouna, PO Jagatkhana, Tehsil Nainadevi, Distt. Bilaspur, Himachal

Pradesh.

….……....Applicant/Workman

5946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

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

The Chief Engineer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, BSL Project, Sundernagar-175038.

…..Respondents/Management

Present:-

Mr. S C Gupta, AR for workman.

Sh. Ravinder Rana (Law Officer), AR for Management.

Award

Passed on:- 01.04.2025

Central Government vide Notification No.L-23012/132/2018 (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. Lekh Ram S/o Sh.

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

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

concerned is entitled to and from which date?‖

The brief facts, related to the case are that the construction of Beas Sutluj Link Project {hereinafter called as

BSL(P)} started in the year 1962 under Beas Control Board, which was constituted on 10.02.1961 with its

headquarter at Sundernagar. After passing of Pb. Re-Organization Act, 1966 (hereinafter called ―Re-Organization

Act‖) Beas Control Board was replaced by Beas Construction Board (hereinafter called ―BCB‖). The workman was

employed by BSL Project, Sundernagar on 04.02.1972. The workman who was employed in Beas Project(Unit-1)

become the employee of Bhakra Beas Management Board(hereinafter called as BBMB) in pursuance of proviso (1) of

Section 80(3) and Section 80(5) of Re-organization Act and the workman become the employee of the Centre

Government under the management of B.B.M.B. from 15.05.1976. The workmen of this project were considered as

the employees of the Central Government by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Jaswant Singh and others

Versus Union of India and others (AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 115) . The workman has completed 240 days in

every calendar year and was not interrupted till his retrenchment. The employer made a bulk retrenchment of project

employees in the year 1977 and 1978 and also in stages thereafter till 1984. The workman was also retrenched by the

employer on 24.08.1977 and copy of discharge certificate was issued by the office of Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB

Sundernagar in accordance with provision of the Act. After the retrenchment of the workman, the management

appointed fresh workmen/employees, violating Section 25-F, Section 25-H, Rule 77 & 78 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The

BSL Project is an industrial establishment as per Section 25 L of the Act. This action of the management also violates

the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in Para 40 of the case of Jaswant Singh (supra). No notice as

per Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is statutory requirement, has been issued to the

workman. Not only this no seniority list as per law was prepared and principle of last come first go was violated by

the management at the time of retrenchment of the workman, which also violates Section 25G of the Act.

It is also maintained that similar matters have been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

vide its judgments dated 7.5.2007 in CWP Nos.3061-64 of 2006, 3069 of 2006,3073-3083 of 2006,3085-3087 of

2006,3090-3137 of 2006 and 3148-3149 of 2006. These judgments of the Hon'ble High Court have been upheld by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Biri Singh and others etc. in SLP

Nos. 16939-17007 of 2007 vide of orders dated 8.7.2014. Vide order dated 8.7.2014 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

ordered that the matter to be taken up before the Industrial Tribunal. Many of the workmen have already taken up the

matters before the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1 and 2 Chandigarh. It may also

not be out of context to mention here that the present matter is covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case titled as Raghubir Singh V/s General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in JT 2014

(10) SC 168. It is therefore, prayed that the claim petition of the workman may kindly be allowed and

retrenchment/discharge order dated 24.08.1977 of the workman be held illegal since workman has already retired in

January 2007, so he may be released consequential benefits till date.

Management filed written statement, alleging therein that workman is Ex-work charged employee of Beas

Construction Board, which was constituted under Section 80(1) of the Re-organization Act. The workman was

retrenched after completion of the work of BCB in accordance with the provisions of the Act and settlement in this

behalf. The workman was paid terminal benefits i.e. retrenchment compensation, gratuity, ex-gratia amount on

account of his retrenchment from BCB as per provisions of Act. It is further maintained that BCB and present

management are two distinct and separate entities. It is also maintained that construction of Beas Project was

undertaken by the Irrigation Department Punjab Govt. prior to the re-organization of the erstwhile State of Punjab on

01.11.1966. After re-organization the work of BSL(P) was taken over by the Central Govt. on behalf of partner states

of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan. The Central Govt. constituted BCB under Section 80(5) of the Re-organization

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5947

Act and further stipulated that any component of Beas Project in relation to which the construction has been

completed be transferred by the Central Govt. to Bhakra Management Board(hereinafter called as BMB) constituted

under Section 79(1) of the Re-organization Act. It is further stated under Section 80(5) of the Re-organization Act that

BMB would be re-named as BBMB when any component of Beas Project was transferred under Section 80(6) of the

Re-organization Act. The workman was employed by the BCB. Thus, the workman never remained the employee of

management. Even work-charged employees of the BCB had filed a petition in the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India,

titled as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India &Anr., 1979 SCC 440, in which their claim for absorbing

them in BBMB is not granted instead their retrenchment from BCB was upheld. Remaining averments have been

denied and it is stated that the claim of the workman is hopelessly time barred and the workman has no legal

enforceable right to claim employment in BBMB. It is prayed that claim be dismiss.

A rejoinder was also filed by workman contravening the facts taken in written statement as reiterating the

facts as stated in claim petition.

Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.

Evidence of workman:

The workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1/A and has been

cross-examined by the law officer of management. He also tendered document Ex.WW1/1 Discharge Certificate and

AR for workman closed evidence on 06.10.2023.

Evidence of respondents:-

The respondents have filed affidavit of Er. Dinesh Kumar son of Sh. Hawa Singh, Executive Engineer,

Balancing Reservoir Slit Clearance & Plant Design Division, BBMB Sundernagar, who filed his affidavit in evidence

as Ex.MW1/A and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman. He also tendered photocopy of

Service Record of workman as Ex.MW1/B and management evidence was closed on 16.10.2024 and the matter was

fixed for arguments.

Submissions of Management:

While arguing the case, learned Law Officer for the respondents contended that initially Beas Control Board

was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred from

Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, BMB

was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of various works as mentioned in Section 79 itself.

Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organization Act provides that BMB constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be

re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the

BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project have been so transferred. All the projects under

BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in 1984. Present workman was employed as work

charged employee on 04.02.1972 and was retrenched on 24.08.1977. All similar work charged employees including

the present workman were engaged by the BCB which ceased to exist in the year 1984 therefore, the workmen cannot

be termed as the employees of the BBMB because there does not exist BCB which was his parent department.

Moreover, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another Vs. Union of India & Anr.,

1979 SCC 440 has held that work charged employees were bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected by

the management and also by the award 2-C of the year 1971 before Sh. H.R. Sodhi, Presiding Officer, CGIT-

Chandigarh between workman and employees of the Beas Construction Board, Sunder Nagar and published in the

gazette on 15.06.1974 of the Govt. of India.

So far as the claim of the workman regarding re-employment after retrenchment on 24.08.1977 is concerned,

workman was not entitled for re-instatement as in a case under reference no.2-C of 1971 decided by Sh. H.R. Sodhi,

the then Presiding Officer, CGIT-Chandigarh, it was held that management in order to establish an industrial peace

and to secure the work charge employees after completing the work can engage after completion of project at any

time within 6 months for the maintenance of staff for project of any work if it is required to those work charged

employees in order to seniority who have put 10 years of service. The relevant portion of para is reproduced as below:

“It is accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six

months thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or

transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first

be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years‟ continuous

service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical

fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to

their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected.”

10.

Because the present workman had not completed 10 years of service so he is not entitled for re-employment.

Learned representative for the management further contended that in this case workman was retrenched on

24.08.1977 after receiving due retrenchment compensation etc. and now he is claiming re-employment under Section

5948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25-H of the Act and his claim is hopelessly time barred as he has filed the present claim petition in the year 2018. To

support this view he has placed reliance in the case titled as Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam & Anr. Vs. Sham Lal,

AIR 2006, Supreme Court 2682, wherein in identical matters Court has not entertained writ petition due to inordinate

delay. In the present case there is a delay of about 32 years. He also relied upon the case titled as Ram Chand Vs. The

BBMB and another, CWP no.2787 of 2018, decided on 03.12.2018 where the Hon‘ble Himachal Pradesh High

Court has held that dispute if any ought to be raised within a reasonable period as the Act does not prescribed time

limit for referring such dispute. AR for respondents also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of

Himachal Pradesh Shimla in CWP No.3057 of 2023 titled as Ghunghriya Ram versus Himachal Pradesh State

Electricity Board Limited and others and judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court, Madras in WP Nos.5556 of 2021

titled as Mr. D Poomaran versus The General Manager, Bharat Petorloum Corporation Ltd. and others, wherein it

is stated that as per Section 2-A(3) of the Act, the order should be challenged within 3 years from the date of

dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or otherwise termination of service as specified un sub-section (1) of Section 2-A.

In the present case workman was engaged on 04.02.1972 and was discharged on 24.08.1977 and he has sought re-

employment after 32 years which was held to be highly time barred. Thus, he contended that claim of workman is

time barred. Workman was discharged on 24.08.1977 and thereafter he filed present claim before the Labour

Conciliation Officer.

Submissions of applicant:-

11.

While arguing the case, learned AR for the workman contended that in this case workman was discharged on

24.08.1977 illegally and he was issued discharge certificate WW1/1 by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB Sundernagar.

He referred to Section 25-H of the Act which provides re-employment of retrenched workman. He further has drawn

the attention of the Court towards the statement of the workman. He was required to be adjust in view of Section 25-H

of the Act by the management. He was not given any employment. While arguing further, learned AR for the

workman referred to Rule 77 and 78 of the Industrial Dispute Central Rule 1957 (hereinafter called Industrial Rule).

Rule 77 provides maintenance of seniority list of workman and it states that before any worker is retrenched the

appellant-establishment is required to place on the notice board the seniority list of all the workmen who were to be

retrenched but nothing has been done in this regard before retrenchment of the present worker. She also referred to

Rule 78 which provides that as and when any vacancy incurred then retrenched workmen were required to be given

registered notice but nothing was done by the management. Moreover, question of limitation does not arise as no

limitation period has been prescribed under the Act for seeking relief under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section

10 of the Act.

Findings:-

12.

I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned AR for the workman and also for

the respondents.

13.

The respondents relied upon mainly in this case on the case titled as Jaswant Singh and another (supra),

which is very material for decision of this case. The said judgment deals with two types of petitioners. First type of

petitioners was employed by the BCB on purely temporary basis and they had also given written undertaking

confirming the term of their appointment. The BCB appointed the first type of petitioners on ad hoc basis with a clear

understanding that they will have no right to be retained in service after the completion of the Beas Project. They are

Engineers, Section Officer, Accounts Clerk, Teacher etc. and they have claimed their parity with other employees

who belonged to the services of the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan Governments and who were serving on deputation

in connection with the works of the Bhakra Nangal Scheme.

14.

In respect of these employees, it was held as follow:-

“To sum up, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are employees of the Central Government. Their

conditions of service will be primarily governed by the terms of their appointment but, if they are entitled to

the benefit of any of the rules of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965, they may make

representations in that behalf to the appropriate authorities. It is, however, not possible for this Court to

grant to the petitioners any of the reliefs claimed by them as arising out of the provisions of the aforesaid

rules, including the relief by way of a declaration that they shall be deemed to be in quasi- permanent service

under rule 3. We are further of the opinion that the petitioners have no right to be transferred to the services

of the Bhakra Management Board, now re-named as the Bhakra Beas Management Board. Lastly, the

proposed retrenchment of the petitioners does not offend against the guarantee of equality contained in

articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since the petitioners and the Deputationists belong to two different and

distinct classes.”

15.

As regards, second type of employees i.e. work charged employees the judgment deals in Para 41, 42, 43, 44,

45, 46 and 47 which read as follow:-

“41.A work-charged establishment broadly means an establishment of which the expenses, including the

wages and allowances of the staff, are chargeable to "works". The pay and allowances of employees who are

borne on a work-charged establishment are generally shown as a separate sub-head of the estimated cost of

the work.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5949

42. The entire strength of labour employed for the purposes of the Beas Project was work-charged. The

work-charged employees are engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the

execution of a specified work. From the very nature of their employment, their services automatically come

to an end on the completion of the works for the sole purpose of which they are employed. They do not get

any relief under the Payment of Gratuity Act nor do they receive any retrenchment benefits or any benefits

under the Employees State Insurance Schemes.

43. But though the work-charged employees are denied these benefits, they are industrial workers and are

entitled to the benefits of the pro- visions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from

that special enactment under which even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification.

The work-charged employees, therefore, are in a better position than temporary servant like the other

petitioners who are liable to be thrown out of employment without any kind of compensatory benefits.

44. The record of Writ Petition No. 4505 of 1978 shows that offers of alternative employment were made to

the work- charged employees and many of them have accepted those offers. The rule of 'last come, first go'

has also been consistently adopted while retrenching the work-charged employees. In fact the work-charged

employees possess a unique right as industrial employees since, by reason of section 25J(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the provisions of Chapter VA, "Lay-off and Retrenchment", have effect notwithstanding

anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law including standing orders made under the

Industrial Employment (Standing orders) Act, 1946.

45. There were in all about 36000 work-charged employees working on the Beas Project. Out of them, about

26000 have already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived between the workmen

and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

New Delhi, under section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. All the 12 unions of which the work-

charged employees are members were parties to the said conciliation proceedings. By reason of section

18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a settlement arrived at in the course of a conciliation proceeding is

binding on all persons who were employed in the establishment to which the dispute relates, whether they

were employed on the date of the dispute or subsequently. In Ramnagar Cane and Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Jatin

Chakravorty and ors., it was held by this Court that it is not even necessary, in order to bind the work men to

the settlement arrived at before the conciliator, to show that they belonged to the union which took part in

the conciliation proceedings, since the policy underlying section 18 of the Act is to give an extended

operation to such settlements. In the instant case, all the 12 unions which represented the workmen on the

work-charged establishment were parties to the conciliation proceedings. The settlement will therefore bind

all the work-charged employees.

46. Apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings, an award was made by the Industrial

Tribunal, Central, Chandigarh, in Reference No. 2-C of 1971, in an industrial dispute between the work-

charged employees of the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, with which we are concerned, and the

management. Under that award, as stated in the award itself, a consent formula was evolved to which the

workmen "virtually agreed". The benefits which flow- to the work- charged employees under the aforesaid

award dated May 15, 1974, have been accepted by almost all the work- charged employees, involving a

burden of about Rs. 3 crores on the employers.

47. Since the work-charged employees are bound by the settlement dated June 28, 1977 effected between

them and the management in the conciliation proceedings and since they are also bound by and have

accepted benefits under the consent award dated May 15, 1974 they are not entitled to any rights apart from

those flowing from the aforesaid settlement and the Award. SLP No.1246 of 1979 which is filed to challenge

the Award and C.M.P. No.2077 of 1979 which is filed for condonation of the delay of over four and half

years caused in filing the SLP shall have to be dismissed.”

16.

Thus, from the above observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court it is clear that work charged employees are

engaged on a temporary basis and their appointments are made for the specified work and their service comes to an

end on the completion of work for the sole purpose of which they are employed.

17.

Para 43 provides that work charged employees are industrial worker and entitled to the benefit of the

provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act. Their rights flow from that special enactment under which

even contracts of employment are open to adjustment and modification. Para 45 as reproduced above further provides

that in the conciliation proceeding it has been held that there were about 36000 work charged employees working on

Beas Project out of them 26000 has already accepted retrenchment compensation under the settlement arrived

between the workmen and the management in the conciliation proceedings held by the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), New Delhi under Section 12 of the Act. The said settlement is binding on all the work

charge employees who are working in the establishment to which the dispute relates. In para 46 it is further stated that

apart from the settlement in the conciliation proceedings an award was made by the CGIT Chandigarh in reference

no.2-C in an industrial dispute between the work charged employee of the Beas Sutlej Project, Sundernagar with

which we are concerned and the management. A consent formula was evolved to which the workmen virtually agreed.

5950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the last para 47 itself specifically stated that work charged employees are bound by the settlement and award May

15, 1974 and they were entitled to rights those flowing from the settlement and award.

18.

So far as the settlement executed between the work charged employees and management through unions, the

same has not been produced by the management despite opportunity was given to file the same. Thus, adverse

interference can be drawn against them. To support this view, reliance can be placed to the judgment of Hon‘ble

Punjab & Haryana High Court in case held as 2001(3) RSJ 382 Ambika Parashad Versus Punjab Urban Planning

and Development Authority Chandigarh and Another wherein it has been held ―that respondent has not

produced record in the Labour Court to prove that Workman has not completed 240 days of service though

application was submitted by the Workman for production of record held that a person in possession of the

best evidence has to produce the same, otherwise adverse inference can be drawn against the said party‖. In

this case also as per order dated 24.02.2025 of this Tribunal, respondents were asked to produce the settlement arrived

between the 12 union of the work charged employee and management under Section 12 of Act before the Regional

Labour Commissioner, New Delhi and all the work charged employee were bound by the said settlement. On

13.03.2025, Mr. Ravinder Rana, Law Officer appeared on behalf of respondents and stated that aforesaid settlement is

not traceable. It is also added here that in similar decided matters, wherein number of opportunities were given to the

respondents to produce the said settlement, however, despite of availing specific directions, the said policy was not

produced. Those cases are ID No.247/2005 titled as Dharam Singh Versus BBMB and another, ID No.127/2005

titled as Narpat Ram versus Bhakra Beas Management Board and another and other similar matters. As such

adverse inference can be drawn against the management in view of the above law.

19.

As regards award passed by Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, the relevant claim of the work

charged employees was regarding their regularization services and the finding given by the Tribunal is as follow:-

―Regulation of Services of the workcharged employees.

It is an un-disputed fact that the entire strength of labour as employed in the Project is workcharged. The

institution of workcharged establishment is not only necessary but sometime unavoidable. These workmen

are engaged on temporary basis and their services are utilized for the execution of a specified work for which

they may be suited. From the very nature of employment the services of such workman automatically come to

an end on the completion of the work. A workcharged employee does not get any relief under the Payment of

Gratuity Act nor is he benefitted by the employees state Insurance Scheme. He does not indeed enjoy any

retiral benefits. Before partition of the country in 1947 it was not usual to have project, construction of

which required a number of years to complete but after constituting ourselves into a democratic Republic

and the Government having taken in hand five year plans for development of the country there are various

schemes involving the construction of works for a period extending over several years as is the case of the

instant Project. It commenced in 1962 and more than 12 years having passed the completion might take

another few years. In such situation it seems reasonable and fair that a workman who has, like a regular

employee, spent the part of his life ranging from 5-10 years upto 20 year, should not be thrown on the road

and must be assured some benefits as are available to regular staff. The other aspect of the matter is that the

employer could not compelled to retain workcharged employees after the work for which the latter had been

engaged is completed, as after all, he was employed before a particular job and the employer, be it the

Government or any of its public undertakings, cannot taken upon itself the responsibility of that workman

for all time to come. It can be well argued that such a workmen should feel happy and content that instead of

remaining un-employed be got employment for a long time.

To assure Industrial peace and economic justice to such class of workmen some balance has in my opinion

to be stuck between the two extremes. It is the duty of the State under the Directive Principles enunciated in

part 4 of the constitution to secure and protect that social order in which justice, social and economic could

be had by all institutions of national life. I fell that it is equally the duty of an adjudicator of industrial

disputes charged with the duty of administering social justice to be guided by the fundamentals contained in

this chapter though he has to bear In mind the limits of the economic capacity of the employer and

Endeavour must have ever be made to secure work for every citizen do in our present economy. It is not

possible to immediately achieve that object. The workman employed by the respondent management are

drawn from different states out of which I am informed about 8/10 thousands are from Punjab about 22000

from Himachal Pradesh and the remaining from the states of Rajasthan and Haryana. Some of the workmen

are from U.P and Bihar and a handful from Kerala. The board has by and large been consistently following

the Punjab pattern in the matter of wage structure, revision thereof from time to time and grant of dearness

allowance. It is only with regard to categories not appearing in the common Schedule of Rates prepared by

the erstwhile United State of Punjab that the board took its independence decisions on the recommendations

of its own standing committee. Even Himachal Pradesh Government generally followed the Punjab policy.

The state government of Punjab in its wisdom, and I should say rightly has declared that the services of work

charged employees in building and roads branch who had worked for 10 years or more would stand

regularized in the sense that the workmen would be treated at par with those in the regular service of the

state government. The benefit of this announcement was afterwards extended to the employees of its

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5951

irrigation branch as well at the workman who held from Punjab continue to stay in their parents state the

services of those who had put in 10 years or more would have been regularized the respondent management

too in pursuance of its policy to follow the Punjab pattern might have regularized the services of at least of

those workmen who had come from Punjab but any such course would have created awkward situation as

the workmen from other States could not be discriminated in this respect. Moreover financial implications

and other complications are involved.

In such circumstances stated above, would have directed that the services of those of the workman who have

been continuously employed for more than 10 years should be regularized. But the other problems arising

from such a direction including financial impact on the employer cannot be lost sight of The Central

Government through the board is only managing on behalf of the state of Punjab, Rajasthan Haryana and

Himachal Pradesh who are partners in the venture. Several aspects of the question were discussed with the

workmen and the management in the course of arguments and a formula evolved to which the workman

virtually agreed and I feel that such a solution as stated hereunder is quite just to all the parties provided it is

work out, honestly stated. No doubt, what is referred to me is the matter of regularization of the services of

work charge employees, but the directions that I am issuing in my opinion, amount to only granting lesser

relief than claimed by the workmen. The management can also have no grievance if it wants industrial peace

and is anxious to secure employment to the work-charged employees after the completion of the work. It is

accordingly, directed that at the time of completion of the Project or at any other time within six months

thereof for the maintenance staff for the Project or any of its Works if it is required to be recruited or

transferred from any department of the State Governments or of the Central Government, the offer shall first

be made to the work-charged employees in order of their seniority who have put in 10 years‟ continuous

service or more under the Board in that category or trade where the vacancy occurs subject to the medical

fitness of such workmen. The scale of wages as applicable to the workmen will not, however, be disturbed to

their prejudice nor their continuity of service affected. The workmen have expressed an apprehension that

near the completion of the Project trades of some of them might be changed so that it could be said that a

suitable workman needed for a particular job was not available and an outsider was therefore necessary to be

employed. To protect the workmen against this possible denial of their rights it is further directed that

category or trade of no workman shall be changed within one year preceding the completion of the Project

without his consent in writing and that if any such change without consent is made it will have no

consequence inasmuch as such a workman will be entitled to the job of his earlier trade provided the vacancy

relates to that trade. As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance

staff. I have no reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also

the Central Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or

work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where there is a need for

workmen of those trades.”

20.

A perusal of aforesaid findings made it ample clear that the order has been passed by the then learned

Presiding Officer, CGIT, Chandigarh to maintain industrial peace and to secure employment to the work charged

employees after the completion of the work and it was also held by the learned CGIT that State Govt. who are

beneficiary under the project and the Central Govt. will make every reasonable effort to get those workmen re-

employed at any other project or work whether in any one of these States or in any other part of the country where

there is a need of workmen of those trades.

21.

It is specific case of the workman that respondents also appointed fresh workmen, but preference was not

given to him, which is in clear violation of section 25-H of the Act. In this regard, it is pointed out that no pointed

cross examination has been done by the law officer of the respondents, meaning thereby, the respondents have

admitted that they have engaged fresh workmen but preference was not given to the workman.

22.

Admittedly, in this case, no effort was made by the respondent to give any employment after the

retrenchment of the workmen and even there is non-compliance of Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules. The same are

reproduced below:

77. Maintenance of seniority list of workmen. -The employer shall prepare a list of all workmen in the

particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated to be arranged according to the seniority of their

service in that category and cause a copy thereof to be pasted on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the

premises of the industrial establishment at least seven days before the actual date of retrenchment.

78. Re-employment of retrenched workmen. - (1) At least ten days before the date on which vacancies are to

be filled, the employer shall arrange for the display on a notice board in a conspicuous place in the premises of

the industrial establishment details of those vacancies and shall also give intimation of those vacancies by

registered post to every one of all the retrenched workmen eligible to be considered therefore, to the address

given by him at the time of retrenchment or at any time thereafter:

Provided that where the number of such vacancies is less than the number of retrenched workmen, it shall be

sufficient if intimation is given by the employer individually to the senior-most retrenched workmen in the list

5952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

referred to in rule 77 the number of such senior-most workmen being double the number of such vacancies:

Provided further that where the vacancy is of a duration of less than one month there shall be no obligation on

the employer to send intimation of such vacancy to individual retrenched workmen:

Provided also that if a retrenched workman, without sufficient cause being shown in writing to the employer,

does not offer himself for re-employment on the date or dates specified in the intimation sent to him by the

employer under this sub-rule, the employer may not intimate to him the vacancies that may be filled on any

subsequent occasion.]

(2) Immediately after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1), the employer shall also inform the trade

unions connected with the industrial establishment, of the number of vacancies to be filled and names of the

retrenched workmen to whom intimation has been sent under that sub-rule:

Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule need not be complied with by the employer in any case where an

intimation is sent to every one of the workmen mentioned in the list prepared under rule 77.

23.

Moreover, a perusal of cross examination of Er. Dinesh Kumar (MW1) reveals that the workman was never

called for re-appointment at any point of time and as per aforesaid Rule 77 & 78, the workman was required to be

given notice. Moreover, no explanation has been given that after the retrenchment of the workman, other persons

were not recruited by the management, which is in violation of Section 25-H of the Act.

24.

However, the present work charged employee and other work-charged employees have been retrenched long

back and even at the stage it is impossible to re-employe them. However, certainly in respect of workcharged

employees present Respondent was directed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Judgment of Jaswant Singh (Supra) to

give benefits in terms of settlement and award dated 15.05.1974. The main purpose of Hon‘ble Supreme Court and

Ld. CGIT Chandigarh was to rehabilitate to some extent the work charged employees and restore peace and congenial

atmosphere that is why Ld. CGIT Chandigarh had given directions to all state to re-employe them. Thus, it does not

lie in the mouth of present Respondent that no relief can be granted against present Respondent as petitioners are not

their employees.

So far as this argument of Ld. AR of the management that those work charged employees only who have

completed 10 years of service were required to be adjusted within 6 months from their retrenchment is concerned, the

same is devoid of merit as no effort was made by the management to adjust the work charged employees. Moreover,

no documentary evidence has been produced that any effort was made to adjust the workman after his retrenchment.

Further, Ld. CGIT Chandigarh in its last lines concluded as under:-

“As regards those of the workmen who cannot be absorbed on the regular maintenance staff. I have no

reason to doubt that the State Government who are beneficiaries under the Project and also the Central

Government will make every reasonable effort to get them re-employed at any other Project or work whether

in any one of these states or in any other part of the country where there is a need of workmen of those

trades”

Nothing has come on record that above directions were complied with.

25.

Moreover, in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees and management, it

cannot be interfered what were the terms and conditions in the said settlement. Further, CGIT Chandigarh has fixed

ten years time and accrual of vacancy within six months keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and

has evolved his own formula to bring peace and harmony between work charged employees and management but it

cannot be said to be a universal policy in the absence of production of settlement between work charged employees

and management. However, no effort was made to adjust the petitioners in view of order of CGIT.

26.

As regard, this contention of learned AR of management that petitioners were not the employees of the

BBMB but were the employees of BCB, the same is devoid of merit as Discharge certificate was issued by the

BBMB. Moreover, as per respondent Beas Control Board was constituted in the year 1960. BCB was constituted in

the year 1966 and all the projects were transferred from Beas Control Board to BCB in the year 1966 thereafter as per

Section 79 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, BMB was constituted for administrative, maintenance and operation of

various works as mentioned in Section 79 itself. Section 80(6) of the Punjab Re-organization Act provides that BMB

constituted under Section 79 of the Act shall be re-named as BBMB when any of the components of the Beas Project

has been transferred under sub-section 5 and the BCB shall cease to exist when all the component of the Beas Project

have been so transferred. All the projects under BCB were completed in the year 1984 and BCB ceased to exist in

1984. When all work of BCB stands transferred to BBMB so it cannot be said that BBMB is separate identity than

BCB. Rather BCB has merged in BBMB. Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaswant Singh case (supra) in respect

of work charged employees has no where stated that relief can be sought by work charged employees only against the

BCB. So contention of Ld. AR of the management that BCB and BBMB are two separate entities is devoid of merit.

27.

So far this argument of Law Officer for the respondent that the case is hopelessly time barred is concerned,

the same is again devoid of merits as there was non-compliance of Rule 77 and 78 of Industrial Rules which has been

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5953

reproduced above. Moreover, there is no limitation period prescribed for filing a reference. Moreover, reference was

received in the year 2018. So far as case laws on the point of limitation the same are not attracted in the present case

as there was no compliance of Judgment of Jaswant Singh case (Supra). Moreover, limitation was added in Section

2A of the Act in the year 2010 (15.09.2010) and workman was dismissed from service on 24.08.1977 and AR for

respondents has failed to bring this fact that the aforesaid provision was retrospective.

28.

It is added here that in the present case, the reference was made under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the Act. It is not case filed under Section 2-A of the Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as

Raghubir Singh V/s General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar (supra) has held as follow:

“42. It is an undisputed fact that the dispute was raised by the workman after he was acquitted in the criminal case

which was initiated at the instance of the respondent. Raising the industrial dispute belatedly and getting the same

referred from the State Government to the Labour Court is for justifiable reason and the same is supported by law

laid down by this Court in Calcutta Dock Labour Board (supra). Even assuming for the sake of the argument that

there was a certain delay and latches on the part of the workman in raising the industrial dispute and getting the

same referenced for adjudication, the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred

to it by adjudicating the same on merits of the case and it ought to have moulded the relief appropriately in favour of

the workman. That has not been done at all by the Labour Court. Both the learned single Judge as well as the

Division Bench of the High Court in its Civil Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal have failed to consider this

important aspect of the matter.”

Even Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.31 of the said judgment has held as follow:

“31. The rejection of the reference by the Labour Court by answering the additional issue no. 2 regarding the delay

latches and limitation without adjudicating the points of dispute referred to it on the merits amounts to failure to

exercise its statutory power under Section 11A of the Act. Therefore, we have to interfere with the impugned award of

the Labour Court and the judgment & order of the High Court as it has erroneously confirmed the award of the

Labour Court without examining the relevant provisions of the Act and decisions of this Court referred to supra on

the relevant issue regarding the limitation.”

29.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred in the said case decision of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-

Operative Marketing Cum- Processing Service Society Limited & Anr.(AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1351), wherein,

Court has opined that relief cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay, stating that:-

“10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963 are not

applicable to the proceedings under the act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman merely

on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact

by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the labour court can be

generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay in shown to be existing, the

tribunal, labour court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant

back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination

or dismissal.

30.

In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay was not thus fettled to the case of

the appellant. It is also added here that so far as the case Ram Chand Vs. The BBMB and another (supra),

Ghunghriya Ram versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and others (supra) and Mr. D

Poomaran versus The General Manager, Bharat Petorloum Corporation Ltd. and others (supra) referred by

the AR for respondents are concerned, those cases were filed by the workman under Section 2-A of the Act,

which specifically provides limitation of 3 years from the date of dismissal or retrenchment. Section 10(1) of

the Act specifically provide that appropriate government may refer any industrial dispute at any time, whereas

the same is conspicuously absent in sub-section (3) of Section 2A, which could clearly depict the intention of

the legislature namely, it had deliberately imposed limitation period under sub-section (3) of Section 2A. Thus,

period of limitation cannot be considered. So far as the case law titled as Chief Engineer Ranjit Sagar Dam &

Anr. Vs. Sham Lal (supra), the same is not attracted to the facts and circumstance of the present case in view of

the judgment Raghubir Singh V/s General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar (supra), whose relevant

paras are reproduced above. Therefore, it cannot be said that case of applicant was beyond limitation.

31.

However, it is added that workman in his cross examination has admitted that he was served with discharge

certificate as well as notice at the time of his retrenchment but he did not recollect how much the amount was. So,

there is no breach of Section 25 F of the Act.

32.

Further, there was non-compliance of Jaswant Singh Case (Supra), Reference No.2C of 1971 and Rule 77

& 78 of Industrial Rules and in this case it would be highly difficult to re-employe the workman. The only remedy left

is to compensate the workman in term of money.

33.

Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case and other connected case of similar nature the

following scheme of compensation is deemed fit by this Tribunal:

5954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workcharged employee who has completed 5 years of service or more shall be entitled for Rs.50,000/- along

with interest @9% per annum as compensation from the date of moving of application till the realization of amount.

ii.

Workcharged employee who has completed less than 5 years but more than 1 year would be entitled

Rs.25,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of moving of application till the realization of amount.

iii.

Those employees who have not completed 1 year will not be entitled for any compensation in the present

case.

34.

The present work charged workman was employed on 04.02.1972 and was retrenched on 24.08.1977 as

mentioned in Discharge Certificate (Ex.WW1/1) issued by Sub Divisional Officer, BBMB Sundernagar, and has

worked for 5 years and about 6 months (more than 5 years), so he is entitled of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @9%

per annum from the date of moving the application till its realization.

35.

The reference is answered accordingly and stands disposed off.

36.

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

publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1587.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

5/2003) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/117/2002-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of BCCL.

and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/117/2002– 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. 5/2003

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 01/08/2025

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5955

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-20012/117/2002-IR(C-I) dated 10/12/2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Branch Secretary, Rashtriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Moodidih Colliery, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

क्या राष्ट्रीय कोलऱयरी मजदूर सॊघ की भारत कोककॊग कोऱ लऱलमटेड, लसजुआ ऺेत्र के प्रबॊधतॊत्र से माॉग कक श्री सुकुमार

कोऱे को उनसे कननष्ट्ठ कममकारों की ऩदोन्ननत की तारीख से टैक्नीकऱ एण्ड सुऩरवाइजर ग्रेड में ऩदोन्नत ककया जाये

उचित एवॊ न्यायसॊगत है? यदद हाॉ तो कममकार ककस राहत के ऩात्र हैं तथा ककस तारीख से?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/117/2002-IR(C-I) dated 10/12/2002 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 5 of 2003 was registered on 01.01.2003 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. Even after issuance of notices, none appeared on behalf of the workman/union. It further appears from the case

record that after a long gap regd. notices were issued to both the parties on 16.08.2021 but the registered notice of

workman/union was returned with remarks ―Not Traced‖ and thereafter no further step was taken from the side of the

workman/union, whereas Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate appeared from the side of the management and filed his

letter of authority but the workman/union never appeared before the Tribunal since 01.01.2003.

4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpires that the workman/union never appeared before this Tribunal

for a period of 22 years which shows that the workman/union has no interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of

justice, this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5. Hence,

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1588.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

/2002)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/163/2002-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 106/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

CCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/163/2002– 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.

5956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reference Case No. 106/2002

Employer in relation to the management of N.K. Area of M/s. CCL, Ranchi.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 01/08/2025

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-20012/163/2002-IR(C-I) dated 07/10/2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of N.K. Area of M/s. CCL and their workman through (i)Area Secretary, Rashtriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Ranchi (ii) Chairman, Janta Mazdoor Sangh, Ranchi (iii) Area Secretary, CCL, Colliery

Karamchari Sangh, Ranchi (iv) Zonal Secretary, NCOEA, Ranchi (v) Secretary, United Coal Workers Congress

Union, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the management of N.K. Area of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. is justified in introducing

staggered weekly off in place of the existing Sunday weekly off? If so, what directions are required to

be issued for smooth functioning of the new system?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/163/2002-IR(C-I) dated 07/10/2002 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 106 of 2002 was registered on 18.10.2002 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 notices, none appeared on behalf of the unions. It further appears from the case record

that after a long gap regd. notices were issued to both the parties on 16.08.2021 but the three registered notices of

unions were returned with remarks ―Incomplete Address‖, ―खऱारी मे राष्ट्रीय कोलऱयरी मजदूर संघ नहीं है वापस” and

―Insufficient Address.‖ Thereafter no further step were taken from the side of the unions whereas Sri D.K. Verma, Ld.

Advocate appeared from the side of the management and filed his letter of authority but the unions never appeared

before the Tribunal since 18.10.2002.

4. On perusal of the entire case record it is transpires that the unions never appeared before this Tribunal for a period

of 23 years which shows that the unions have no interest in this case and therefore, for the ends of justice, this case

deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

5. Hence

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1589.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

डी.वी.सी.बेमो माइंस ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1

ds iapkV (

/2002) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-42012/125/2002-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5957

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 116/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

D.V.C.Bermo Mines. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025

[No. L-42012/125/2002– 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. 116/2002

Employer in relation to the management of D.V.C. Bermo Mines, Bokaro.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- None.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 28/07/2025

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-42012/125/2002-(IR(CM-II)) dated 30/10/2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of D.V.C. Bermo Mines and their workman through Secretary, DVC Karamchari Sangh,

Bermo Mines Units for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the denial of management to give the regular employment to the workers who were

supplying the water regularly in difference places of premises of Bermo coal mines of DVC is

justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-42012/125/2002-(IR(CM-II)) dated 30/10/2002 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 116 of 2002 was registered on 18.11.2002 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 service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently

rejoinder. It further appears that after 2012 this case was put up after a long gap on 05.08.2021 and registered notices

were issued to both the parties but neither the workman nor management appeared before this Tribunal. The

registered notice sent to the Secretary, D.V.C. Karamchari Sangh, Bermo Mines Units, returned with endorsement

―No such person in this address‖ and both the parties did not appear since the year 2021 which shows that the they

have lost their interest in this case and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the case deserves to be dismissed

due to non prosecution.

4. Hence,

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1590.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

85/2003) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/89/2003-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

5958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/89/2003– 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. 85/2003

Employer in relation to the management of Mugma Area of M/s. E.C.L., Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- None.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 01/08/2025

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-20012/89/2003-IR(C-I) dated 19/08/2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer

i.e. management of Mugma Area of M/s. E.C.L and their workman through General Secretary, Koyla Mazdoor Union,

Asansol, Barddhaman for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the Management of Rajpura Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s ECL in

denying employment to Sri Mahendra Baratia as the dependent son of Late Nari Baratia is fair and

justified? If not to what relief is the said dependant entitled?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/89/2003-IR(C-I) dated 19/08/2003 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 85 of 2003 was registered on 06/13.10.2003 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. Even after issuance of notice, none appeared from either side. The case record shows that this case was put up after

a long gap on 17.09.2021 and the regd. notices were issued to both parties 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

―Addressee Left‖.

4. It transpires from the case record that both the parties neither appeared before the Tribunal since the year 2003 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 for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1591.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

बीसीसीएल 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 : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5959

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

161/2001)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/167/2001-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 161/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/167/2001– 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. 161/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Md. Faishal Asstt. Manager

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 01/08/2025

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-20012/167/2001-IR(C-I) dated 11/07/2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Vice President, Rashtriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of East Katras Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Somar

Mahato No.2 from the service of the company w.e.f. 30.09.92 is justified? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/167/2001-IR(C-I) dated 11/07/2001 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 161 of 2001 was registered on 09.08.2001 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 service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently

rejoinder. It further appears that after 2006 this case was put up after a long gap on 17.09.2021 and registered notices

were issued to both the parties but neither the workman nor management appeared before this Tribunal. Though on

27.06.2025 Sri Md. Faishal Asstt. Manager appeared on behalf of the management but the workman/union did not

appear before this Tribunal since the year 2021 which shows that workman/union has lost his interest in this case and

therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the case deserves to be dismissed due to non prosecution.

4. Hence,

5960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1592.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

239/2001)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/373/2001-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 239/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/373/2001– 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. 239/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Western Jharia Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 01/08/2025

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-20012/373/2001-IR(C-I) dated 07/11/2001 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Western Jharia Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Sri B. Mohanti, Area

Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether denial of subsistence allowance for the period of 4 months during suspension and then

demoting Sri Bideshi Bauri from conveyer Khalasi Cat-V to General Mazdoor Cat-I, is jusfied and

proportionate to the offence committed? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?‖

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5961

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/373/2001-IR(C-I) dated 27/11/2001 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 239 of 2001 was registered on 02.01.2004 and

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

relevant documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. After service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently

rejoinder. It further appears that after 2006 this case was put up after a long gap on 15.01.2021 and registered notices

were issued to both the parties but workman/union did not appear before this Tribunal. However Sri D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management appeared. Thereafter again regd. notice was sent to workman/union on

30.05.2025 and the same was returned with endorsement ―प्राप्तकताा मर गया है इसलऱए वापस‖ and workman/union did

not appear since the year 2021 which shows that workman/union has lost his interest in this case and therefore, this

Tribunal is of the opinion that the case deserves to be dismissed due to non prosecution.

4. Hence,

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1593.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

84/2002) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/121/2002-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 84/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/121/2002– 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. 84/2002

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate.

For the workman. :- None.

5962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 01/08/2025

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-20012/121/2002-IR(C-I) dated 25/07/2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Secretary, Bihar Janta Khan

Mazdoor, Sijua, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL, Sijua Area in not regularising Shri Jamal

Khan as Loading Supervisor is fair & Justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman

entitled and from what date?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/121/2002-IR(C-I) dated 25/07/2002 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 84 of 2002 was registered on 02.08.2002 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 service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities, W/S and subsequently

rejoinder. It further appears that after 2006 this case was put up after a long gap on 29.07.2021 and registered notices

were issued to both the parties but workman/union failed to appear before this Tribunal. However Sri D.K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate on behalf of the management appeared. Thereafter again regd. notice was issued to workman/union but

workman/union did not appear since the year 2021 which shows that workman/union has lost his interest in this case

and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the case deserves to be dismissed due to non prosecution.

4. Hence,

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1594.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

96/2001) dks

izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/496/2000-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 96/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/496/2000– 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5963

Reference Case No. 96/2001

Employer in relation to the management of E.J. Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri N.Nath O.S. Legal, H.Q.

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 28/07/2025

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-20012/496/2000-(C-I) dated 29/03/2001 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 Area Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―क्या भा.को.को.लऱलम., ई.जे. ऺेत्र के प्रबॊधतॊत्र द्वारा श्री सुदर्मन ओझा, जनरऱ मजदूर को दद. 5.10.98 से बखामस्त

ककया जाना ववचधवत, न्यायोचित एवॊ सही है ? यदद नहीॊ तो कममकार ककस राहत के ऩात्र हैं ?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/496/2000-(C-I) dated 29/03/2001 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 96 of 2001 was registered on 24.04.2001 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 from the case

record that when the case record was put up after a long gap, registered notices were sent on 26.05.2020 for

appearance of the parties but thereafter no step was taken from either side. Whereas Sri Naresh prasad, Ld. Advocate

appeared from the side of the management on 17.03.2021 and filed his letter of authority and subsequently from

22.11.2021 to 21.03.2022 he appeared before this Tribunal and thereafter failed to appear but the workman never

appeared before the Tribunal since 2001, though on 20.06.2025, Sri N. Nath O.S Legal, H.Q 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 24 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 for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1595.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

11/2011)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/67/2010-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

5964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/67/2010– 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. 11/2011

Employer in relation to the management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri N. Nath O.S, H.Q (Legal)

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 01/08/2025

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-20012/67/2010 (IR(CM-I)) dated 16/03/2011 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Organising Secretary, Rashtriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

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

Sri Kanhaiya Lal as Attendance Clerk is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/67/2010 (IR(CM-I)) dated 16/03/2011 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 11 of 2011 was registered on 08.04.2011 and thereafter

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

documents in support of their claims and the witnesses.

3. Even after issuance of regd. notice, none appeared from either side though on 30.05.2025, Sri Mukesh Kumar,

Legal Inspector of management appeared. Again regd. notice was sent to the workman on 30.05.2025 that was

delivered to him on 06.06.2025 and even after that he did not turn up.

4. Today Sri N. Nath O.S, H.Q (Legal) of management appeared.

5. The case record shows that after issuance of two regd. notices, the workman never appeared before the Tribunal

since the year 2011 which makes it clear that the workman has no interest in this case and therefore, this Tribunal is

of the opinion that this case deserves to be dismissed for non prosecution.

6. Hence,

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1596.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

293/2000)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5965

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/132/2002-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 293/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/132/2002– 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. 293/2000

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 28/07/2025

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-20012/132/2000-IR(C-I) dated 27.09.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer i.e. management of Kusunda Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman through Vice President, Rashtriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Industry Colliery of M/s BCCL in not providing

employment to Sri Ashok Kumar Mahato, S/o Late Bhupali Mahato is justified? If not, to what relief

is the concerned workman entitled?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/132/2000-IR(C-I) dated 27/09/2000 Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 293 of 2000 was registered on 04.10.2000 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 service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities,W/S and rejoinder. It transpires

from the case record that after 2006 this case was put up after a long gap on 12.06.2017 and registered notices were

issued to both the parties and both parties appeared but again after 17.01.2018 this case was put up after a long gap on

3.7.2019 and again regd. notices were issued to both the parties and workman/union appeared on 27.09.2019 and

26.12.2019 and thereafter failed to appear before this Tribunal. Though on 26.06.2025 Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

appeared on behalf of the management but the workman/union did not appear before this Tribunal since 26.12.2019

which shows that workman/union has lost his interest in this case and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the

case deserves to be dismissed due to non prosecution.

4. Hence,

5966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDERED

that this case is hereby dismissed for non prosecution and a ―No Dispute Award‖ be drawn up in respect of the

above reference case. Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment,

Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 20 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1597.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj

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

-

सह

-

] धनबाद-1 ds iapkV (

140/2001)

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

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 20012/101/2001-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2025

S.O. 1597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 19/08/2025.

[No. L-20012/101/2001– 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. 140/2001

Employer in relation to the management of Bhowra Colliery under E.J. Area of M/s.BCCL, Dhanbad.

AND.

Their workman.

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri N.Nath O.S. Legal, H.Q

For the workman. :- None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:-Coal

Dated 28/07/2025

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-20012/101/2001-C-I dated 18/24.05.2001 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 Secretary, B.C.K.U, Hirapur, Dhanbad for

adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―कममकार श्री बी.एन.डे. की सेवाननवृवि, उनकी बीमारी (कैंसर), एवॊ उससे ऩूवम उन्हे र्ारीररक रूऩ से सेवा के लऱए घोवित

न ककए जा सकने की ऩररस्स्थनतयों ऩर दृस्ष्ट्ट रखते हुए क्या बबहार को॰ कामगार यूननयन को भा.को.को.लऱ., ई.जे.ऺेत्र,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5967

के प्रबॊधतॊत्र से, कममकार के आचश्रत ऩुत्र को अनुकम्ऩा आधार ऩर ननयुस्क्त ददए जाने की माॊग उचित एवॊ न्यायसॊगत है?

यदद हाॉ तो क्या ननदेर् आवश्यक हैं?‖

2. On receiving order no. L-20012/101/2001-C-I dated 18/24.05.2001 Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, Reference case no. 140 of 2001 was registered on 20.06.20011 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 service of notice, both parties appeared previously and filed their authorities and W/S. It further appears that

workman/union also filed some documents and led evidence from his side. It transpires from the case record that after

2007 this case was put up after a long gap on 30.09.2020 and registered notices were issued to both the parties but

neither the workman nor management appeared before this Tribunal. Thereafter on 17.03.2021 Sri Naresh Prasad, Ld.

Advocate for management appeared and filed his letter of authority after that he appeared on different dates till

21.03.2022 and subsequently failed to appear before this Tribunal. Though on 20.06.2025 Sri N. Nath, O.S. Legal,

H.Q appeared on behalf of the management but the workman/union did not appear before this Tribunal since the year

2020 which shows that workman/union has lost his interest in this case and therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion

that the case deserves to be dismissed due to non prosecution.

4. Hence,

ORDERED

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

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

Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 25 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1598.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj ब्रॉडकास्स्ट्टग इंजीजनयररग कंसल्टेंट इंजडया जलजमटेड.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

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

–

सह

–

नं. II]

नई ददल्ली ds iapkV (आई डी नम्बर 06/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20013/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2025

S.O. 1598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 06/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court N0.II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

BroadCasting Engineering Consultant India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 25/08/2025.

[No. L-20013/01/2025– IR (CM-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II,

NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 06/2019

Sh. Pawan Das, S/o Sh. Hari Das,

R/o- B-1248, Gautampuri Phase-II,

Badarpur, New Delhi-110020.

5968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

VERSUS

The Director,

All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS),

Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029.

M/s Broadcasting Engineering Consultant India Ltd.,

Besil Bhawan, C-53, A/17, Sector-62,

Noida-201307.

AWARD

This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an Act) filed by

the claimant.

Claimant in his claim statement has stated that he was working as Data Entry with the management-1

through contractor i.e. Bedi & Bedi Associate Company, since 18.02.2012 and his last drawn salary was Rs. 16,468/-.

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. Thereafter, his contract period had expired on 30.09.2016 and a new contract was taken over

by M-2 i.e. BECIL on 01.10.2016, but none of the old employees including workman by Bedi & Bedi Associate

Company were removed. Apart from the above data entry, he was also made to do dealing head (online tender,

uploading, price BOQ, tender process, tender comparative/tender price comparative, tender corrigendum, making

tender rate contract, reply of RTI/company letters, reply of internal audit AIIMS, EMD refund and hospital transport

work, officer dealing/company representative dealing etc.). He complaint about the above workload and mental stress

to the hospital store officer and company manager but the company manager and store officer did not pay any heed to

his complaint. Thereafter, on 17.04.2018 he was terminated without issuing any notice, without any rhyme or reason.

He informed the company management on 03.05.2018about his illegal termination and also gave him a written

complaint, but no hearing was held and he was not taken back on job. He has gone to the conciliation officer, 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 already been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.08.2019.

Management no. 2 has filed its written statement stating that claim of the claimant is not maintainable

because the employment of the complaint with the M-2 was for a fixed period purely on contractual basis and the

same had expired by efflux of time. He also submitted that claimant has raised the present false and frivolous claim

against the management, the same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. .

After completion of the pleadings, following issues have been framed on 18.12.2019 i.e.-

(i)

Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

(ii)

Whether there exist any employer or employee relationship between the workman and he management no. 2.

(iii)

Whether the service of the workman was illegally terminated by the management.

(iv)

Whether the workman is entitled to the benefit of reinstatement and other consequential benefits.

Thereafter, AR of the workman has filed an application for amendment in claim. Now, the matter is listed for

filing of reply against the said application. However, neither the workman nor his AR has been appearing since long

to substantiate his claim.

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: 29.05.2025

नई ददल्ली, 25 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1599.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj जेट एयरवेज इंजडया जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–

सह

–

नं. II] नई ददल्ली ds iapkV

(आई डी नम्बर01/2013) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल- 20013/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj-(

.एम-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5969

New Delhi, the 25th August, 2025

S.O. 1599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 01/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court N0.II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Jet

Airways India Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25/08/2025.

[No. L-20013/01/2025– IR (CM-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 01/2013

Sh. Sube Singh vs. Jet Airways India Ltd.

Sh. Sube Singh, C/o Sh. Master Hukum Chand,

A-164, 3^rd Floor, Road No.-4, Street No.-11,

Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037.

…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

Jet Airways India Ltd.,

Terminal-3, IGI Airport,

New Delhi-110037.

… Management/respondent

Counsels:

For Applicant/ Claimant:

Sh. Akhilesh Singh and Ms. Radhika Goyal, Ld. ARs.

For Management/ Respondent:

None for the management.

Award

30.06.2025

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

(hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘). The claimant claims to have been employed with the management as a Senior

Ground Technician w.e.f. 08.02.2007, and his last drawn salary was Rs. 19,375/-. On 18.07.2011, when the claimant

requested the management to grant him leave for one day, i.e., 21.07.2011, for the operation of his mother, Col.

Kulwant Singh, GSD, Manager of the management, refused to grant leave, forcibly detained him in the office,

confined him for 2–3 hours, and thereafter coerced him into giving his resignation letter. He tried to approach the

senior officials, but they did not allow him to rejoin duties at the instance of Manager GSD, Col. Kulwant Singh. It

was submitted that the said act of the management is unlawful and arbitrary. Therefore, he has filed the present claim

with the prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages, continuity of service, and other consequential benefits.

In response, the management appeared and filed a written statement denying the claimant‘s averments. As a

preliminary objection, it was submitted that the present claim is not maintainable before the Tribunal as the claimant

was employed as a Senior Ground Support Technician and was performing functions of supervisory and

administrative nature, and therefore, did not fall within the definition of ‗workman‘ under Section 2(s) of the Act. It

was further submitted that the claimant had submitted a resignation letter dated 18.07.2011 citing personal reasons,

which was accepted by the management upon his request. The claimant was accordingly relieved from his services

with immediate effect.

On merits, the management denied each and every allegation made by the claimant in his claim statement. It

was specifically denied that the claimant had sought leave, or was forcefully detained and coerced into writing the

resignation letter. Lastly, the management prayed that the claim be dismissed in view of the above submissions.

5970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

A Rejoinder had been filed by the claimant where he denied the averments made by the management in its

written statement and reaffirmed the averments of his claim statement.

After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the claimant is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

2. Whether services of the claimant were dispensed with by the management illegally on 18.07.2011?

3. Whether the claimant is entitled to relief of reinstatement in service?

In order to prove his claim, the claimant examined himself as WW1. He reiterated the contents of his claim

statement and relied upon the following documents:



A copy of the salary slip (Ex. WW1/1).



A copy of confirmation letter issued by the management (Ex. WW1/2).



A copy of leave application (Ex. WW1/3).



A copy of medical case sheet of the claimant‘s mother (Ex. WW1/4).



Termination letter issued by the management (Ex. WW1/5).



Legal notice sent by the claimant (Ex. WW1/6).



Speed post receipt (Ex. WW1/7).



Order of Ld. P.O.L.C., Karkardooma Court, Delhi whereby the claimant was granted liberty to file the claim

before the Conciliation Officer (Ex. WW1/8).



Failure certificate issued by the conciliation officer (Ex. WW1/9)

The claimant was cross-examined at length by AR for the management, during which he admitted that :



The resignation letter was signed by him but it was taken under compulsion.



No police complaint was made by him in respect of the forced resignation.



He denied that the leave application was forged and fabricated and was never submitted to the management.



He admitted that up to 2011, he used to take leaves as usual like other employees.



He admitted that the employees who were working as assistants were getting instructions and guidance in respect

of work from assistant technicians and assistants technicians were working under senior technicians.

The entire case of the claimant rests on the premise that he was a workman and was coerced into writing his

resignation letter when he sought leave, thereby being wrongfully terminated on 18.07.2011. On the other hand, the

management‘s case is that the claimant is not a ‗workman‘ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. In this regard,

Section 2(s) of the Act is required to be reproduced herein:

2 [(s) “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 3[ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the

nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature.]

On a fair reading of the provisions in section 2(s) of the Act, it is clear that ‗workman‘ means any person

employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for

hire or reward including any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched.

The latter part of the section excluded four classes of employed mainly in a managerial or administrative

capacity, or a person employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month or exercises

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5971

functions mainly of a managerial nature. It has to be taken as an accepted principle that in order to come within the

meaning of the expression ‗workman‘ under section 2(s), the person has to be discharging any one of the types of the

works enumerated in the first portion of the section. If the person does not come within the first portion of the section

then it is not necessary to consider the further question whether he comes within any of the classes of workmen

excluded under the latter part of the section. The question whether the person concerned comes within the first part of

the section depends upon the nature of duties assigned to him and/or discharged by him.

Now coming to the evidence led by the claimant: admittedly, he was working as a ‗Senior Technician‘ and

was drawing a salary above Rs. 10,000/- per month. In his cross-examination, the claimant himself admitted that

assistant technicians and assistants were working under senior technicians and received instructions from them.

The claimant also relied upon a judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme court of India in Sharad Kumar vs.

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Appeal (civil) 2622 of 2002, passed on 11.04.2002, where the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court had directed GNCTD to refer the dispute raised by the appellant to the labour court including the

question whether the appellant is a ‗workman‘ under the Act. However, in the present case, evidence has already been

led, and the claimant himself admitted that he worked in a supervisory capacity as a Senior Technician, with

subordinates reporting to him, and earned a salary of Rs. 19,375/-, which exceeds the statutory ceiling.

Considering the evidence discussed, the claimant cannot be said to be a ‗workman‘ under section 2(s) of the

Act. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favor of the management, and against the claimant.

In view of the findings on issue no. 1, there is no need to decide issue no. 2 & 3. The claim of the claimant

stands dismissed. Award is accordingly passed. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for

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

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Dated 30.06.2025

नई ददल्ली, 28 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1600.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

foHkkx सेवा केंद्र 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 (a02/2024) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj-(बी-I)-108]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 28th August, 2025

S.O. 1600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.02/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. I Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD Service

Center and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-1) -108]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.02/2024

Smt. Anita & 43 ors, Through Indian National Migrant Workers‘ Union, 1770/8, 3^rd Floor, Govind Puri Extn., Main

Road Kalkaji, new Delhi.

…Claimant

Versus

1. CPWD Service Centre, Hudco Place, Andrews Ganj Exttn., Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-110049.

2. M/s MIA Construction Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Plot No.1, Gaurav Apptts, Patparganj, Delhi-110092.

3. M/s Rajesh Kumar Jain & Sons, GG-62/2A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.

…Management

5972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 6, 2025/BHADRA 15, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/II-

108/2023-IR dated 26.12.2023 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 demands (details mentioned in Annexures-A) of Smt. Anita & 43 others (Details mentioned

in Annexure-B) through Indian National Migrant Workers Union against the management of M/s Rajesh

Kumar Jain & Sons contractor of CPWWD Service Centre, Hudco Place, New Delhi, are legal and/or

justified? And if so, then what relief are the workmen entitled to what directions are necessary in this

regard?”

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.

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 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.

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.

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

Date: 23.07.2025

नई ददल्ली, 28 अगस्ट् त, 2025

का.आ. 1601.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

सेवा केंद्र 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 (a03/2024) izdkf”kr

djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-vkbZ-vkj-(बी-I)-109]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 28th August, 2025

S.O. 1601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. I Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of CPWD Service

Central and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-1) -109]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.03/2024

Shri Sikander Kumar Parihar & 52 ors, Through Indian National Migrant Workers‘ Union, 1770/8, 3^rd Floor, Govind

Puri Extn., Main Road Kalkaji, new Delhi.

…Claimant

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 6, 2025/भाद्र 15, 1947

5973

Versus

1. CPWD Service Centre, Hudco Place, Andrews Ganj Exttn., Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-110049.

2. M/s MIA Construction Pvt. Ltd., A-31, Plot No.1, Gaurav Apptts, Patparganj, Delhi-110092.

3. M/s Rajesh Kumar Jain & Sons, GG-62/2A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.

…Management

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/II-

107/2023-IR dated 26.12.2023 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:

The Schedule

„Whether the demands (details mentioned in Annexures-A) of Shri Sikender Kumar Parihar & 52 others

(Details mentioned in Annexure-B) through Indian National Migrant Workers Union against the

management of M/s Rajesh Kumar Jain & Sons contractor of CPWWD Service Centre, Hudco Place,

New Delhi, are legal and/or justified? And if so, then what relief are the workmen entitled to what

directions are necessary in this regard?‟