5945 GI/2025
(6111)
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. 36]
नई ददल् ली, जसतम् बर 14 —जसतम् बर 20, 2025, िजनवार/भाद्र 23—भाद्र 29, 1947
No. 36]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 14––SEPTEMBER 20, 2025, SATURDAY/BHADRA 23–BHADRA, 29, 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)
जल िजि मंत्रालय
(जल संसाधन, नदी जवकास और गंगा संरक्षण जवभाग)
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1647.—केंद्रीय सरकार ब्रह्मृुत्र बोडड अजधजनयम, 1980 (1980 का 46) की धारा 4 की उृधारा (3) द्वारा
प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार के ृूवडवती जल संसाधन मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना सं्या का.आ. 2313
तारीख 18 ददसम्बर, 2005 भारत के राजृत्र, भाग-II, खण्ड 3, उृखण्ड (ii) तारीख 17 जून, 2006 द्वारा प्रकाजित दकया
गया था, के अनुसरण में और भारत सरकार के ृूवडवती ससचाई मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना सं्या का.आ. 926(अ) तारीख
28 ददसम्बर, 1981, भारत के राजृत्र, भाग-II, खण्ड 3, उृखण्ड (ii) तारीख 29 ददसम्बर, 1981में प्रकाजित दकया गया
था, का अजधक्रमण करते हुए, ब्रह्मृुत्र बोडड की स्ट्थाृना करती हज जजसमें जनम्नजलजखत सदस्ट्य िाजमल होंगे, अथाडत :-
(क) धारा 4 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) के अधीन सदस्ट्य:-
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-25092025-266383
CG-DL-W-25092025-266383
6112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(i) अध्यक्ष, ब्रह्मृुत्र बोडड, बजसस्ट्था, गुवाहाटी-781029;
(ii) उृाध्यक्ष, ब्रह्मृुत्र बोडड बजसस्ट्था, गुवाहाटी-781029;
(ख) धारा 4 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (ख) के अधीन सदस्ट्य:-
(i) महाप्रबंधक, ब्रह्मृुत्र बोडड, बजसष्ठा, गुवाहाटी-781029
(ii) जवत्तीय सलाहकार, ब्रह्मृुत्र बोडड, बजसष्ठा, गुवाहाटी-781029
(ग) धारा 4 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (ग) के अधीन सदस्ट्य:-
(i) सजचव, जल संसाधन जवभाग, असम सरकार, ददसृुर, गुवाहाटी- 781006;
(ii) सजचव, जल संसाधन जवभाग, अरुणाचल प्रदेि, ईटानगर-791113;
(iii) सजचव, जल संसाधन जवभाग, मेघालय सरकार, जिलांग;
(iv) सजचव, जल संसाधन जवभाग, मजणृुर सरकार, इंफाल-795001;
(v) सजचव, जल संसाधन जवभाग, जमजोरम सरकार, आइजोल;
(vi) सजचव, जल संसाधन जवभाग, नागालैंड सरकार, कोजहमा-797001;
(vii) सजचव, लोक जनमाडण जवभाग (जल संसाधन) जत्रृुरा सरकार, कुंजाबन, अगरतला-799006;
(viii) सजचव, ससचाई एवं जलमागड जवभाग, ृजिम बंगाल सरकार, जलसंृदा भवन, जबधान नगर, कोलकाता-700091;
(ix) सजचव, जल संसाधन एवं कल्याण तथा ग्रामीण जवकास जवभाग, जसदिम सरकार, गंगटोक, जसदिम – 737102;
(x) जवत्तीय सलाहकार, उत्तर ृूवी ृररषद, जिलांग-793001
(घ) धारा 4 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (घ) के अधीन सदस्ट्य:-
(i) अृर सजचव (प्रिासन) अथवा संयुि सजचव (प्रिासन), जल िजि मंत्रालय, जल संसाधन, नदी जवकास और गंगा
संरक्षण जवभाग, श्रम िजि भवन, रफी मागड, नई ददल्ली-110001;
ii.
संयुि सजचव (प्राकृजतक संसाधन प्रबंधन), कृजष एवं दकसान कल्याण मंत्रालय, कृजष, सहकाररता एवं दकसान कल्याण
जवभाग (प्राकृजतक संसाधन प्रबंधन प्रभाग);
iii.
संयुि सजचव एवं जवत्तीय सलाहकार, जल िजि मंत्रालय, जल संसाधन, नदी जवकास और गंगा संरक्षण जवभाग, श्रम
िजि भवन, रफी मागड, नई ददल्ली-110001;
iv.
संयुि सजचव (हाइड्रो), जवद्युत मंत्रालय, श्रम िजि भवन, नई ददल्ली-110001;
v.
संयुि सजचव, ृूवोत्तर क्षेत्र जवकास मंत्रालय, जवज्ञान भवन, एनेक्सी, मौलाना आजाद रोड, नई ददल्ली – 110011;
vi.
आयुि (ब्रह्मृुत्र और बराक), जल संसाधन, नदी जवकास और गंगा संरक्षण जवभाग, जद्वतीय तल, ब्लॉक नंबर 3,
सीजीओ कॉम्प्लेक्स, नई ददल्ली-110003;
vii.
मु्य अजभयंता, भारतीय अंतदेिीय जलमागड प्राजधकरण, ए-13, सेक्टर-1, नोएडा
viii.
सलाहकार (जल संसाधन और भूजम संसाधन), नीजत आयोग, योजना भवन, संसद मागड, नई ददल्ली-110001
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6113
(ड़) धारा 4 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (ड़) के अधीन सदस्ट्य:-
i.
सदस्ट्य (नदी प्रबंधन), केंद्रीय जल आयोग, सेवा भवन, आर.के. ृुरम, नई ददल्ली- 110066;
ii.
मु्य अजभयंता (ब्रम्हृुत्र एवं अन्य बराक संस्ट्था), केंद्रीय जल आयोग, रेबेका जवले, बाररक प्वाइंट के समीृ, टेम्ृल
रोड, लोअर लाचुजमयर जिलांग – 793001;
iii.
मु्य अजभयंता (ब्रम्हृुत्र एवं अन्य बराक संस्ट्था), केंद्रीय जल आयोग, अदाबारी, गुवाहाटी - 781126;
iv.
मु्य अजभयंता, तीस्ट्ता बेजसन संग न, केंद्रीय जल आयोग, जीई-2, ृहली मंजजल, सेक्टर-III, साल्ट लेक,
कोलकाता - 700 106;
v.
जनदेिक, ृूवोत्तर क्षेत्रीय जल तथा भूजम प्रबंधन संस्ट्थान
vi.
जनदेिक, केंद्रीय जल और जवद्युत अनुसंधान स्ट्टेिन
vii.
सदस्ट्य (जल जवद्युत योजना एवं जवकास), केंद्रीय जवद्युत प्राजधकरण, सेवा भवन, आर.के. ृुरम, नई ददल्ली-
110066;
viii.
महाजनदेिक, मौसम जवज्ञान, भारतीय मौसम जवज्ञान जवभाग, लोधी रोड, नई ददल्ली-110003;
ix.
उृ महाजनदेिक, भारतीय भूवज्ञाजनक सवेक्षण, उत्तर ृूवी क्षेत्र, श्याला जबसल्डग, नोंजग्रम जहल्स, ृी.ओ. बॉक्स-11,
जिलांग-793003
2. यह अजधसूचना राजृत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से प्रवृत होगी।
[फा. सं. ए-50013/48/2025-ई-III]
रजव रंजन, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF JAL SHAKTI
(Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation)
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1647 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Brahmaputra Board Act,
1980 (46 of 1980) and in pursuance of the notification of the Government of India, in the erstwhile Ministry of Water
Resources, vide number S.O.2313 dated the 18th December, 2005 published in the Gazette of India, Part- II, Section 3,
sub-section (ii) dated the 17th June, 2006 and in supersession of notification of the Government of India, in the erstwhile
the Ministry of Irrigation notification vide number S.O 926 (E) dated the 28th December, 1981 published in the Gazette
of India, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section(ii), dated the 29th December, 1981, the Central Government hereby establishes
the Brahmaputra Board consisting of the following members, namely:-
(A) Members under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 4:-
(i) Chairman, Brahmaputra Board, Basistha, Guwahati-781029;
(ii) Vice Chairman, Brahmaputra Board Basistha, Guwahati-781029.
(B) Members under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 4:-
(i) General Manager, Brahmaputra Board, Basistha, Guwahati-781029;
(ii) Financial Adviser, Brahmaputra Board, Basistha, Guwahati-781029.
(C) Members under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 4:-
(i) Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati- 781006;
(ii) Secretary, Water Resources Department, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar-791113;
(iii) Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong;
(iv) Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Manipur, Imphal-795001;
(v) Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl;
(vi) Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Nagaland, Kohima-797001;
6114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(vii) Secretary, Public Work Department (Water Resources), Government of Tripura, Kunjaban, Agartala-799006;
(viii) Secretary, Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal, Jalasampad Bhawan, Bidhan
Nagar, Kolkata – 700091;
(ix) Secretary, Water Resources and Welfare and Rural Development Department, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok,
Sikkim – 737102;
(x) Financial Adviser, North Eastern Council, Shillong-793001.
(D) Members under clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 4:-
(i) Additional Secretary(Admn) or Joint Secretary(Admn), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water
Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001;
(ii) Joint Secretary (Natural Resource Management), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department
of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare (Natural Resource Management Division);
(iii) Joint Secretary and Financial Adviser, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River
Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001;
(iv) Joint Secretary (Hydro), Ministry of Power, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi-110001;
(v) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, Vigyan Bhawan, Annexe, Maulana Azad
Road, New Delhi – 110011;
(vi) Commissioner (Brahmaputra and Barrak), Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga
Rejuvenation, 2nd Floor, Block No. 3, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003;
(vii) Chief Engineer, Inland Waterways Authority of India, A-13, Sector-1, NOIDA.
(viii) Adviser (Water Resources and Land Resources), NITI Ayog, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
(E) Members under clause (e) of sub-section (3) of section 4:-
(i) Member (River Management), Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi- 110066;
(ii) Chief Engineer (Brahmaputra and Other Barak Organization), Central Water Commission, Rebekka ville, Near
Barik Point, Temple Road, Lower Lachumiere Shillong – 793001;
(iii) Chief Engineer (Brahmaputra & Other Barak Organization), Central Water Commission, Adabari,
Guwahati – 781126;
(iv) Chief Engineer, Teesta Basin Organisation, Central Water Commission, GE-2, 1st Floor, Sector-III, Salt Lake,
Kolkata – 700106;
(v) Director, the North Eastern Regional Insititute of Water and Land Management;
(vi) Director, the Central Water and Power Research Station;
(vii) Member (Hydro Power Planning and Development), Central Electricity Authority, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi- 110066;
(viii) Director General of Meteorology, Indian Meteorological Department, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003;
(ix) Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, North Eastern Region, Shylla Building, Nongrim
Hills, P.O. Box-11, Shillong-793003.
2. This notification shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
[F. No. A-50013/48/2025-E-III]
RAVI RANJAN, Under Secy.
कोयला मंत्रालय
नई ददल्ली, 10 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1648.—कारखाना अजधजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 63) की धारा 2 के खंड (ढ) के ृहले प्रावधान के
खंड (iii) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों के अनुसरण में, केंद्रीय सरकार नीचे दी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में जनर्ददष्ट अजधकाररयों को
एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड (एनएलसीआईएल) के संबंजधत कारखाने या कायडिाला के "अजधष्ठाता" के प ृ में जनयुि करती हज,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6115
जो उि ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में जनर्ददष्ट हज, जजसका ृंजीकृत कायाडलय नंबर 135, ईवीआर ृेररयार हाई रोड, दकलृौक,
चेन्नई -600 010 में हज, अथाडत:
कारखाने का नाम (सौर ऊजाड ृररयोजना)
अजधष्ठाता के प ृ में जनयुि दकए जाने वाले अजधकारी का ृदनाम
एनएलसीआईएल 50 मेगावाट सौर ऊजाडृररयोजना, खजनत
भूजम, खान-II, नेयवेली
उृ महाप्रबंधक/महाप्रबंधक/मु्य महाप्रबंधक
2.
एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड के अध्यक्ष-सह-प्रबंध जनदेिक को एतद्द्वारा ऐसे अजधकाररयों को संबंजधत ृदों ृर नाजमत
करने के जलए अजधकृत दकया जाता हज, जजन्हें उृयुडि जनर्ददष्ट कारखानों के अजधष्ठाता के प ृ में नाजमत दकया
गया हज।
[फा. सं. 38026/1/2013-सीए-II]
प्रदीृ राज नयन, अवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2025
S.O. 1648.—In pursuance of the powers, conferred by clause (iii) of the first provision to clause (n) of Section 2
of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints officers specified in column (2) of the
Table below as ―Occupier‖ of the respective factory or workshop of NLC India Limited (NLCIL), specified in column
(1) of the said Table having its registered office at No.135, EVR Periyar High Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai-600 010, namely:
Name of the Factory (Solar Power Project)
Designation(s) of Officer to be appointed as Occupier
NLCIL 50 MW Solar PowerProject, Mined-out land,
Mine-II, Neyveli
Deputy General Manager/General Manager/Chief General
Manager
2.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of NLC India Limited is hereby authorized to nominate by name such
officers to the respective positions, who are designated as occupiers of the factories, as indicated above.
[F. No. 38026/1/2013-CA II]
PRADEEP RAJ NAYAN, Under Secy.
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई ददल्ली, 8 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1649.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मेससड श्रीराम सीमेंट वक्सड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राजेंद्र कुमार बजरागी (मृतक), श्रीमती लीला बाई
(ृत्नी), श्रीमती ररकी वास्नव (बेटी), श्रीमती टीना बेरागी (बेटी), श्रीमती जनतु बेरागी (बेटी)। श्री दीृक बेरागी (ृुत्र) के बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोटा, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-(केन्द्रीय) 07/2005 (सीआईएस-
132/2014)) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ
08.09.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-29012/37/2004-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2025
S.O. 1649.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central) 07/2005 (CIS-132/2014)) of the Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Shriram Cement Works and Shri Rajendra Kumar Beragi (Death), Smt. Leeta Bai (Wife),
6116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Smt. Rinki Vasnav (Daughter), Smt. Tina Beragi (Darghter), Smt. Nitu Beragi (Daughter). Shri Deepak Beragi
(Son) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.09.2025.
[No. L-29012/37/2004-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&07@2005¼lhvkbZ,l&132@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001312005½
fnukad LFkkfir% 01-10-2005
izlax%
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k
dz- ,y&29012@37@2004&¼vkbZvkj¼,e½½ fn-01-06-2004
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
jktsUnz dqekj cSjkxh iq= Jh uUn fd'kksj cSjkxh ¼e`rd½
}kjk fof/kd izfrfuf/k
1- Jherh yhyk ckbZiRuh Lo- Jh jktsUnz cSjkxh
2- Jherh fjadh oS".ko iq=h Lo- Jh jktsUnz cSjkxh
3- Jherh Vhuk cSjkxh iq=h Lo- Jh jktsUnz cSjkxh
4- Jherh uhrw cSjkxh iq=h Lo- Jh jktsUnz cSjkxh
5- nhid cSjkxh iq= Lo- Jh jktsUnz cSjkxh
fuoklh 1&ds&22] jaxckM+h ;kstuk] dksVk ¼jkt-½ }kjk ftyk lfpo] ,vkbZVh;wVh] d`".k eqjkjh ;kno] 5 th 12] egkohj uxj r`rh;] dksVk
-----izkFkhZx.k
,oa
tujy eSustj] eSllZ Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ] Mh-,l-lh-,y-] Jhjke uxj] dksVk ¼jkt-½
------vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh fnus'k jk; f}osnh
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh oh-ds- tSu
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fnukad% 09-04-2025
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 01-06-2004 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ
fuEukuqlkj izkIr gqvkA
"Whether the General Manager, M/s Shriram Cement Works, DSCL, Kota in terminating the services of Shri
Rajendra Prasad S/o Nand Kishore w.e.f. 11/07/2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled and from which date?"
2&mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk
mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed fdlku Fkk mlds firk uan
fd'kksj dh Hkwfe fueksnk xzke esa fLFkr Fkh] izfri{kh us viuh ekbZUl LFkkfir djus gsrq izkFkhZ Jfed ds firk ls lEidZ fd;k rFkk muls ;g oknk fd;k
fd muds iq= dks muds m|ksx esa ukSdjh nh tk,xhA ftl ij izkFkhZ Jfed ds firk us viuh Hkwfe izfri{kh dks nsus ds fy, lgefr nh vkSj dCtk Hkwfe
dk izfri{kh dks lkSai fn;kA izkFkhZ Jfed dks izfri{kh vkS|ksfxd laLFkku Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ dksVk esa fnukad 17-12-1987 dks twfu;j vkWijsVj ds in ij
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6117
fu;ksftr dj fy;kA mlh fnu fnukad 17-12-1987 dks izkFkhZ dks M~;wVh tkWbu djus ds lkFk gh ml dh lsok,a Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ] dksVk esa izkjaHk gks
xbZA izkFkhZ dks ,d fu;qfDr i= fnukad 08-11-1988 dzekad ,llhMCY;w@,pvkjMh fn;k ftlds vuqlkj izkFkhZ dks fnukad 30-09-1989 rd izkcs'ku ij
j[kk tkuk FkkA izfri{kh }kjk fnukad 01-01-1990 dks dks ,d fVdV QkWj ijekusaV odZesu uEcj MCY;w Vh 58156 tkjh dj LFkkbZ Jfed ?kksf"kr dj
fn;k x;kA izfri{Kh ds i= fnukad 30-10-1993 ih,l,y uEcj 58156 ds }kjk fnukad 01-10-1993 ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks vkWijsVj ekbfuax vkWijs'ku ds
in ij inksUur dj fn;kA bl inksUufr ds i'pkr Hkh izkFkhZ dk dk;Z ogh jgk tks fd og bl inksUufr ds iwoZ dk jgkA
çfri{kh laLFkku }kjk fnukad 11-06-2002 ,d uksfVl Øekad ,p vkj Mh MCY;w vkj ,l@ih ,l ,y 58156@01817 tkjh dj çkFkhZ dks
lwfpr fd;k fd og uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl esa fu;ksftr gS] tks fd ,d i`Fkd v.MjVsfdax gS tks fd ekbfuax xfrfof/k;ka djrk gSA ykbeLVksu dh
xq.koÙkk ,oa v‚ijs'kuy b'kwt ds dkj.k uheksnk ykbeLVksu ekbUl esa mRiknu vykHkdj ,oa rduhdh :i ls vlk/; gks x;k gSA ftlds dkj.k uheksnk
ykbeLVksu ekbUl ds v.MjVsfdax dks cUn djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA ;Fkkuqlkj vkidks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 FFF ds vUrxZr
v.MjVsfdax dks cUn fd, tkus gsrq ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k tkrk gSA vkidks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd uksfVl dh vof/k dh lekfIr ij ekbfuax
v‚ijs'ku ds cUnhdj.k ds QyLo:i v.MVsfdax ds cUn gks tkus ls vkidh lsokvksa dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha jgsxh rFkk vkidh lsokvksa dh lekfIr gks
tk,xh] vkidks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 FFF ds vUrxZr eqvkotk vnk fd;k tk,xkA bl ds i'pkr çkFkhZ fnukd 10-07-2002 rd
çfri{kh dh lsok esa jgkA fnukad 11%07-2004 ls çkFkhZ dks MîwVh ij ugha fy;k x;kA bl çdkj çkFkhZ dh lsok,¡ lekIr dj nh x;haA bl çdkj çkFkhZ
dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk@MîwVh ij ugha fy;k tkuk] çkFkhZ dh çfri{kh laLFkku ds çcU/ku }kjk dh x;h NaVuh gSA çkFkhZ dks tujy esustj
Jhjke lhesUV odZ~l] Jhjke uxj] dksVk jktLFkku us Jfed dks Jhjke lhesUV odZ~l dksVk esa twfu;j vkijsVj ds in ij fu;qä fd;k Fkk vkSj Jfed
us Jhjke lhesUV odZ~l dksVk esa gh MîwVh Tokbu dj dk;Z çkjaHk fd;kA ckn esa çkFkhZ dks çfri{kh }kjk vius vkS|ksfxd lLFkku dh uheksnk ykbeLVksu
ekbUl ij fu;qfä i= dh 'krZ laå 3 ¼ch½ ds rgr vçSy 1987 esa LFkkukarfjr dj fn;k x;kA çkFkhZ dh lsok,sa lekIr fd, tkus ds iwoZ ds ,d o"kZ esa
çfri{kh vkS|ksfxd laLFkku esa çfrfnu vkSlru 100 ls vf/kd Jfed@deZpkjh dk;Zjr FksA ftlds dkj.k çfri{kh laLFkku ij vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e 1947 dk psIVj 5 ¼chå½ rFkk /kkjk,sa 25 ,u ,oa 25 vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ykxw gksrh gSA ftlds vuqlkj fdlh Hkh Jfed dks NaVuh
fd, tkus ds iwoZ leqfpr ljdkj ls vuqefr çkIr fd;k tkuk vks|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,u ds vUrxZr vko';d gSA çkFkhZ dks
NaVuh fd, tkus ds iwoZ çfri{kh us ,slh vuqefr çkIr djus ds fy, dksbZ vkosnu leqfpr ljdkj dks çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj mlds }kjk dksbZ
vuqefr çkIr ugha dh x;hA bl /kkjk ds vUrxZr NaVuh ds iwoZ fdlh Hkh Jfed dks rhu ekg dk uksfVl fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] çkFkhZ dks dsoy ek=
,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k x;kA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,u ds vUrxZr çkFkhZ dks NaVuh ds iwoZ vFkok NaVuh ds le; eqvkotk
fn, tkus dk Hkh çko/kku gSA fdUrq çkFkhZ dks dksbZ eqvkotk Hkh vnk ugha fn;k x;kA çfri{kh us çkFkhZ dh lsok,a lekIr djus ls iwoZ çfri{kh vkS|ksfxd
laLFkku esa dk;Zjr Jfed deZpkfj;ksa dh dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph çdkf'kr ugha dh vkSj çkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa tSls HkwisUæ flag xkSM+] PSL No- 58160]
2-
txnh'k
çlkn
[kkrh
PSL-
No-
58166]
3-
daoj
yky]
PSL-
No 58133 4- nsosUæ flag fllksfn;k] PSI- No- 58164 5- rstey- PSL- No- 58158 6- jktsUæ flag pkSgku- PSL- No 58097 7- fd'ku yky]
PSL No 58155 vkfn dks uheksnk ykbeLVksu ekbZUl ls LFkkukUrfjr dj Øekad 1 ls 6 rd ds Jfedksa dk Jhjke lhesUV odZ~l] dksVk QSDVªh esa rFkk
¼Øekad 7½ fd'ku yky dks Jhjke QfVZykbtlZ ,.M dsfedYl dksVk esa inLFkkfir dj fn;kA çkFkhZ ds bu Jfedksa ls ofj"B gksrs gq, Hkh mls NaVuh
dj fn;kA mä of.kZr Jfed vHkh Hkh çfri{kh vkS|ksfxd laLFkku esa fu;ksftr gSA vks|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 vks ds vUrxZr
çfri{kh vkS|ksfxd laLFkku ds çcU/ku }kjk ;g vko';d Fkk fd ;g bl vkS|ksfxd laLFkku ;k blds fdlh Hkkx ;k blds fdlh v.MjVsfdax dk
cUnhdj.k djus ds iwoZ leqfpr ljdkj ls cUnhdj.k dh vuqefr çkIr djrkA çfri{kh us ,slh vuqefr çkIr djus ds fy, dksbZ vkosnu leqfpr
ljdkj dks çLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj mlds }kjk dksbZ vuqefr çkIr ugha dh x;hA çfri{kh }kjk çkFkhZ dks Jhjke lhesUV odZ~l] dksVk esa gh fu;ksftr
fd;k FkkA og viuh lsokvksa ds vUr rd blh vkS|ksfxd laLFkku esa fu;ksftr FkkA çkFkhZ dks rFkk vU; Jfedksa dks uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl ij dke
djus ds nkSjku Hkh osru vkfn dk Hkqxrku Jhjke lhesUV odZ~l dksVk }kjk gh cSad ds ek/;e ls fn;k tkrk FkkA uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl ls çkIr
ykbZe LVksu dh DokfyVh ds ckjs esa ,ålhålhå dEiuh ls losZ djk;k x;k Fkk] ftldh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mä ekbUl esa ykbZe LVksu dh DokfyVh
,oa ek=k fcYdqy lgh ,oe~ mfpr gSA çfri{kh us vkt Hkh mä ekbZUl dh yht dks ljs.Mj ugha fd;k gS vkSj yht lekIr ugha djkbZ gSA ekbUl dh
yht dks ljs.Mj ugha fd;k ftlls gh Li"V gS fd çfri{kh us fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds tkucw>dj euekus ,oe~ voS/k rjhds ls uheksnk ykbZeLVksu ekbUl
uheksnk dks cUnhdj.k djuk çnf'kZr fd;k gSA çfri{kh dEiuh ds çcU/kd lkoZtfud :i ls bl çdkj dh ?kks"k.kk,¡ djrs jgs gSa fd muds ;gk dHkh
Hkh fdlh Jfed dks NVuh ugha fd;k x;k gSA ljIyl gksus ij os Jfedksa dks mfpr çf'k{k.k nsdj daiuh esa gh vU; fu;kstu çnku djrs gSaA fdUrq
çkFkhZ ds ekeys esa ,slk dqN ugha fd;k x;kA çkFkhZ dks fdlh oSdfYid fu;kstu dk dksbZ çLrko ugha fn;k x;kA çkFkhZ dks çfri{kh }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd
fd;k tkuk@MîwVh ij ugha fy;k tkuk NaVuh fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gS D;ksafd çkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus@MîwVh ij ugha fy;s
tkus@NaVuh fd, tkus ds iwoZ çfri{kh }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,u dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA çfri{kh }kjk muds vkS|ksfxd
laLFkku ds dfFkr v.MjVsfdax uheksnk ykbeLVksu ekbUl ds cUnhdj.k ds iwoZ leqfpr ljdkj ls vuqefr çkIr u djds çfri{kh }kjk vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 vks dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA çkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa ds fu;kstu esa jgrs gq, Hkh çkFkhZ dks NaVuh djds çfri{kh }kjk
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 th dh ikyuk ugha dh x;hA çfri{kh us dqN dfu"B Jfedksa dks dfFkr v.MjVsfdax uheksnk ykbeLVksu
ekbUl ds cUnhdj.k ds iwoZ QSDVªh esa LFkkukUrfjr djds rFkk çkFkhZ dks NaVuh djds vuqfpr Je vkpj.k fd;k gSA çkFkhZ dh NaVuh vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds çko/kkuksa ds foijhr gSA çkFkhZ dks lsok ls i`Fkd djuk vuqfpr Je vkpj.k gS rFkk vuqfpr ,o voS/kkfud gSA
çkFkhZ iwoZ esa ,eå bZå lhå [ksrMh d‚ij çkstsDV esa lsokjr Fkk tgk¡ ls ml dh ukSdjh NqM+okdj çfri{kh us mls vius ;gk¡ cqyok;k vkSj 15 o"kksaZ dh
lsok ,oe~ 51 o"kZ dh vk;q esa çkFkhZ dks euekus o voS/k :i ls lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;kA tks fd mlds lkFk ?kksj vU;k; ,oe~ vuqfpr Je vkpj.k
gSA orZeku ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa çkFkhZ bl vk;q esa vU;= dgha Hkh jkstxkj ikus esa leFkZ ugha gS vkSj mls jkstxkj çkIr gksus dh dksbZ laHkkouk;sa ugha jg x;h
gSaA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa çkFkhZ o mlds ifjokj ds lkeus Hkw[ks ejus ds vykok vU; dksbZ ekxZ 'ks"k ugha jg x;k gSA çkFkhZ us vU; nl Jfedksa ds lkFk
mls lsok ls i`Fkd fd, tkus ds fo#) ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] ihB t;iqj esa ,d ,dy ihB flfoy fjV ;kfpdk lå 3785@2002 çLrqr
dh Fkh] ftls ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 30-1-2003 dks fuf.kZr djrs gq, funsZ'k fn;k Fkk fd Jfedksa ds ikl oSdfYid mik; miyC/k
gS rFkk fookfnr fcUnq fjV ;kfpdk esa fuf.kZr ugha fd;s tk ldrsA bl dkj.k fjV ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA rnqijkar çkFkhZ rFkk mlds lkFkh
Jfedksa us mä fu.kZ; ds fo#) jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] ihB t;iqj dh [k.M ihB esa ,d vihy la[;k 419@2003 çLrqr dhA ftldk fu.kZ; djrs
6118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gq, ekuuh; [k.M ihB us vihykFkhZx.k dks le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k viuk fookn çLrqr dj fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dk funsZ'k fn;k rFkk
funsZf'kr fd;k fd le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa dk;Zokgh iw.kZ djsA bl dkj.k mldk fu.kZ; dh çfrfyfi fnukad 24-04-2003 dks çkIr gksus
ij çkFkhZ us viuk fookn fnukad 14-05-2003 dks lgk;d Je vk;qä ,oa le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ¼dsUæh;½ dksVk ds le{k çLrqr fd;kA çkFkhZ ml dh lsok,a
lekIr fd, tkus ds iwoZ oSdfYid fu;kstu çnku djus rFkk ckn esa Hkh çfri{kh ls iqu lsok esa ysus dh çkFkZuk fujUrj djrk vk jgk gSA çkFkhZ yxkrkj
vius fookn dks pykrk jgk gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
3&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd çkFkhZ dks fnukad 26-03-87 dks uheksnk ykbe LVksu
ekbUl ij twfu;j v‚ijsVj ¼ekbZfuax v‚ijs'ku½ ds in ij fu;qä fd;k ,oa çkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k Jhjke lhesUV odZ~l dksVk ls uheksnk ykbZeLVksu
ekbUl] esa fd;k x;k- tks vius vki esa ,d Lora= miØe gSaA uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl tks fd Mining Activities dk dk;Z djrh gS vkSj ,d
Separate Undertaking gS] ds Operational issues, Financially unviable and technically non feasible dkj.kks ds dkj.k uheksnk ykbe
LVksu dks ges'kk ds fy;s canhdj.k djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k ftl ij uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl us vius uksfVl fnukad 11-06-2002 ds }kjk çkFkhZ dks
lwfpr fd;k fd çkFkhZ dh lsok;sa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kå dh /kkjk 25 FFF ds rgr ,d ekg dk uksfVl nsdj v.Mj Vsfdax ds canhdj.k ds QyLo:i
lekIr dh tk jgh gSA bl uksfVl ds }kjk ;g Hkh lwfpr fd;k x;k fd çkFkhZ dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 FFF ds vUrxZr ns;
Compensation vnk dj fn;k tkosxkA mijksä fn;k x;k uksfVl fof/k ds vUrxZr fn;k x;k uksfVl gS vr% oS/k gSA çkFkhZ fueksnk ykbe LVksu
ekbZUl ij fnukd 10-07-2002 rd lsok esa jgk gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl vius vki esa ,d Lora= miØe gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl ekbUl
,DV ds çko/kkuksa ds rgr dk;Z djrh gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl çfri{kh lLaFkku dk foHkkx ugha gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksUl ekbUl esa ek= 15
Jfed fu;qä FksA bl dkj.k vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dk psIVj VB çLrqr çdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrk gSA çLrqr çdj.k esa vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 FFF ds çko/kku ykxw gksrs gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksUl ds canhdj.k djus ds fy;s dkuwu ds vUrxZr okafNr leLr
vkSipkfjdrkvksa dks iw.kZ fd;k x;k gSA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,u ds çko/kku çLrqr çdj.k esa çklafxxrk ugha j[krs gSaA vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&,u çLrqr çdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrh gSaA uheksnk ykbe LVksUl esa dk;Zjr leLr Jfedksa dh lsok;sa canhdj.k ds
QyLo:i lekIr dh xbZ gSA vr% vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 G o 25 H dh vogsyuk dk dksbZ ç'u gh iSnk ugha gksrk gSA uheksnk
ykbe LVksUl ds canhdj.k djus ds fy;s dkuwu ds vUrxZr okafNr leLr vkSipkfjdrkvksa dks iw.kZ fd;k x;k gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl us dkuwu
ds vUrxZr okafNr lHkh vkSipkfjdrkvksa dks iw.kZ dj fn;k gS ,ao In-fact uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl dk canhdj.k fd;k x;k gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksu
ekbUl ds canhdj.k fd;s tkus ds dkj.k uksfVl fnukad 11-06-2002 esa Li"V :i ls of.kZr fd;s x;s gSA uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl laLFkku ds uksfVl
cksMZ ij yxk;s x;s uksfVl esa Hkh cUnhdj.k ds dkj.kks dk Li"V :i ls mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA fueksnk ykbe LVksu ekbZUl dh yht dks jkT; ljdkj
dks ljs.Mj fd;k tk pqdh gSA çkFkhZ dh lsok;sa mfpr :i ls uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl ds canhdj.k ds QyLo:i lekIr gqbZ gSaA ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d –"VkUr AIR 1995 SC 1163 esa ;g vf/kfuf.kZr djok;k gS fd dEiuh dh fdlh ,d ;qfuV ds canhdj.k ds QyLo:i
Jfedksa dks ;g vf/kdkj çkIr ugha gks tkrk gS fd og dEiuh dh nwljh ;qfuV esa tks fd dk;Z'khy gS esa fu;kstu çkIr dj ldsaA çLrqr çdj.k esa
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25&vks ykxw ugha gksrh gSaA çkFkhZ dks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 FFF ds rgr uheksnk ykbe LVksu
ekbUl laLFkku ds canhdj.k ds QyLo:i lsok lekfIr dk ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k x;k Fkk ,oa rnqijkUr çkFkhZ dks mls dkuwuh :i ls ns;
dEiuls'ku 58]340@& dk fMekaM Mªk¶V gkMkSrh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] uheksnk gfj th dk fnukad 15-07-2002 dks jftLVMZ ,åMhå }kjk Hkstk x;k FkkA
tks bl fjekdZ ds lkFk fd ^ckj&ckj ?kweus ij Hkh ikus okyk u feyus ls okfil dh xbZ* uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl dks fnukad 24-07-2002 dks okfil
çkIr gks x;k ,o rnqijkUr fnukad 26-07-2002 dks çkFkhZ dks iqu% dEiuls'ku dk Mªk¶V jftLVMZ ,åMhå i= }kjk Hkstk x;k tks uheksnk ykbe LVksu
ekbUl dks bl fjekdZ ds lkFk fd ^^çkIrdrkZ us ysus ls badkj gksus ij okfil dh^^ fnukad 02-08-2002 dks okfil çkIr gqvkA izkFkhZ dks mlds osru ,oa
mikftZr vodk'k dh jkf'k mlds }kjk fy;s x;s _.k lek;kstu ds i'pkr 14642@& :i;s curh Fkh bls fnukad 02-08-2002 dks gkM+kSrh {kS=h;
xzkeh.k cSad ds fMek.M MªkQ~V }kjk Hkst fn;k x;k tks bl fjekdZ ds lkFk fd ^^^ikusokys us ysus ls euk fd;k** }kjk fnukad 07-08-2002 dks okil
izkIr gks x;kA çkFkhZ viuk dEiuls'ku orZeku esa Hkh vius fu;kstd uheksnk ykbe LVksu ekbUl ls çkIr dj ldrk gSA blfy, izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk
i= [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
4&lk{; esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls Lo;a o vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls t;nhi pkj.k ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls ijLij ftjg dh x;hA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls
nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA
5&vizkFkhZ dh cgl lquh xbZ] tks fd mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius vH;kosnu ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fyf[kr cgl izLrqr dj vafdr
fd;k fd izfri{kh fueksnk ykbe LVksu ekbZUl esa dke dj jgs 15 Jfedksa dks NaVuh dj fn;k x;k buesa ls 13 Jfedksa us izfri{kh ls fglkc izkIr dj
fy;k nksuksa izkfFKZ;ks aus viuh NaVuh dks pqukSrh nhA fueksnk ykbZe LVksu ekbZUl ,d v.MjVsfdax ugha gS D;ksafd /kkjk 25 ,e,Q,Q vkbZ Mh ,DV esa
ftl 'kCn v.MjVsfdax dk mi;ksx fd;k gS og ,d O;kid 'kCn gSA okLrfodrk ;g gS fd Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ ,d v.MjVsfdax gS vkSj uheksnk ykbe
LVksu ekbZUl mlds ,d foHkkx ek= gS mlesa fiNys ,d o"kZ esa 100 ls vf/kd Jfed fu;ksftr Fks bl dkj.k ls og izdj.k ij vkbZ Mh ,DV dk psIVj
5ch izHkoh gksxk] ftlds dkj.k ;g ekeyk /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q vkbZ Mh ,DV ds varxZr canhdj.k dk ugha gS vfirq /kkjk 25 ,u vkbZ Mh ,DV dk gS
bl dkj.k NaVuh fd, tkus ds igys fu;kstd dks jkT; ljdkj ls vuqefr izkIr djuh pkfg, Fkh mlds }kj k;g vuqefr izkIr ugha dh x;h gS bl
dkj.k NaVuh voS/k gSA fueksnk ykbe LVksu Jhjke lhesaV dk ,d Hkkx gS ogka dsoy Jhjke lhesaV ds fy, mRiknu gksrk Fkk dksbZ vyx izca/ku ugha Fkk]
dksbZ vyx cSysal'khV ugha Fkh u gh dksbZ vyx ls dz; fodz; fd;k tkrk Fkk] deZpkfj;ksa dk osru rd Jhjke lhesaV }kjk gh fn;k tkrk Fkk vSj
bulc ds fcuk dksbZ laLFkku v.MjVsfdax ugha gks ldrkA izkFkhZ dh ;g Hkh lk{; gS fd mlls dfu"B Jfedksa dks mDr NaVuh ds iwoZ uheksnk ykbZe
LVksu ls Jhjke lhesaV ds vU; foHkkxksa esa LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;k gS blls Hkh Li"V gS fd fueksnk ykbe LVksu dksbZ v.MjVsfdax ugha Fkk] ,sls esa /kkjk
25 th ds izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gSA var esa izkFkhZx.k dks Jfed ds leLr ifjykHk fnyk;s tkus ds laca/k esa fuosnu fd;k x;kA vius dFkuksa
ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s] ftudk llEeku voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;k%&
1- AIR 1979 SC 170 Avov Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana
2- 1964 AIR SC 645 Management of R.S. Madhoram and Sons Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6119
3- AIR 1980 SC 1454 Worken of Sudder Workshop of Jorehaut Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Management of Jorehaut Tea Col.
Ltd.
vizkFkhZ dh cgl lquh xbZ] tks fd mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius vH;kosnu ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa fuEufyf[kr
U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s] ftudk llEeku voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;k%&
1- AIR 1995 SC 1163 Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. H.S.W.C. Ltd. Employees Union Hyderabad.
6&gLrxr izdj.k esa eq[;r% ;gh ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd tujy eSustj] eSllZ Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ] Mh,llh,y]
dksVk }kjk fnukad 11-07-2002 dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk oS/k gS vFkok ugha \
bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr gqvk gS ftlesa mlus LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh
iqujko`fRr dh gS ,oa ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd tc mldh lsok,a lekIr gqbZ Fkh rc og fueksnk ykbe LVsku esa dke djrk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS
fd fueksnk ykbe LVksu esa dk;Zjr canhdj.k ds fnu tks Jfed dk;Zjr Fks mu lHkh Jfedksa dh lsok,sa canhdj.k ds QyLo:i lekIr gks xbZ FkhA ;g
lgh gS fd canhdj.k dh lwpuk uksfVl cksMZ ij yxkbZ xbZ FkhA ;g Hkh lgh gS fd O;fDrxr :i ls mlds ?kj ij uksfVl dh lwpuk fHktokbZ xbZ FkhA
;g ckr lgh gS fd fueksnk ykbe LVksu esa 15 Jfed dk;Z djrs FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd 15 Jfedksa es ls 13 Jfedksa us viuk fglkc dj fy;k FkkA
mls irk ugha gS fd fueksnk ykbe LVksu dks ekbfuax yht jkT; ljdkj dks iqu% lekIr dj yh tk pqdh gS ;k ughaA izn'kZ ,e -1 uksfVl cksMZ ij
yxk;k x;k FkkA izn'kZ ,e- 2 uksfVl cksMZ ij yxk;k x;k Fkk ijarq izn'kZ ,e- 3 dh mls tkudkjh ugha gSA izn'kZ ,e- 4 mls izkIr ugha gqvkA izn'kZ
,e- 5 ij , ls ch irk mldk gh gS tks lgh gSA ykbe LVksu cangksus ds ckn og dksVk vk x;k FkkA izn'kZ ,e- 6 mls izkIr ugha gqvkA izn'kZ,e- 7 ij
mldk irk vafdr gS tks lgh gSA izn'kZ,e- 8 i= mls izkIr ugha gqvkA mls ugha ekywe fd ekbUl pykus ds fy, tks ykbZlsal dh vko';drk gksrh gS
og izfri{kh us ljs.Mj dj fn;s ;k ughaA U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij izfri{kh ds tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse dks mlus ugha ns[kk gSA mlds vf/koDrk us
crk;k Fkk fd og viuk dEiuls'ku izkIr dj ldrk gSA mls tgka dke feyrk gS ogka ij NksVk eksVk dke dj ysrk gSA
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa t;nhi pkj.k dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mlus tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh
iqujko`fRr dh vkSj ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd og vHkh Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ esa dke dj jgk gSA Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ Mhlh,e
Jhjke fyfeVsM dk ,d ;wfuV gS og Mhlh,e Jhjke fyfeVSM esa dk;Zjr gSA og dEiuh esa Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ dk vkSj nwljh bdkbZ;ksa dk Hkh dke
ns[krk gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ MCY;w- 1 esa dgha Hkh vafdr ugha gS fd izkFkhZ ekbal esa dke djsxkA izn'kZ MCY;w- 2 esa vafdr gS fd Jfed ekbfuax
foHkkx esa twfu;u vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Z djsxkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ MCY;w- 2 Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ us tkjh fd;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ
MCY;w- 3 ds tfj;s Jfed dks inksUufr nh xbZ FkhA izn'kZ MCY;w- 4 Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ }kjk Hkh tkjh fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ MCY;w- 5 uksfVl Jhjke lhesaV
oDlZ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ;g uksfVl NaVuh ds fy;s ugha gksdj v.MjVsfdax fueksnk ykbe LVksu ekbal fueksnk dks can djus ds fy;s tkjh
fd;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd blds }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k Fkk fd ftlls Jfed dh lsok;sa lekIr gks tk;sxhA ykbZe LVksu ekbal] Jhjke lhesaV dh
v.MjVsfdax Fkk] ;g ,d Lora= bZdkbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn'kZ MCY;w- 2 esa ekbZfuax foHkkx Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ dk gh ,d foHkkx FkkA ;g ckr
xyr gS fd Jfed dks izn'kZ MCY;w- 5 ls igyh ckj tkudkjh gqbZ gks fd fueksnk ekbZUl vyx v.MjVsfdax gksA mls tkudkjh ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dh
tehu dks ,Dok;j djds mlds cnys mldks ukSdjh nh gksA Dykstj dk uksfVl nsus ls iwoZ dEiuh us dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha fudkyhA ;g ckr lgh
gS fd HkwisUnz xkSM+] txnh'k izlkn [kkrh] daoj yky] nsosUnz flag fllksfn;k] rstey] jktsUnz flag pkSgku vkSj fd'ku yky dks fueksnk ekbal ls QsDVªh esa
LFkkukarfjr fd;k Fkk tks Dysktj ds igys fd;k Fkk tks fd jksVs'ku ds vk/kkj ij dsiscfyVht ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks igys ,d ckj
uksVs'ku ds vk/kkj ij LFkkuarfjr fd;k x;k FkA ;g lgh gS fd izkFkhZ o mijksDr deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;kstd izca/kd Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ Fkk] eSustj ykbe
LVksu ugha Fkk vHkh Jhjke lhesaV esa 104 odZj dke dj jgs gSA blds vykok ij Ms dkWUVªsDV yscj dke djrh gS] dkWUVªsDVj yscj dh la[;k djhcu
yxHkx 100 gks tkrh gSA lu 2002 esa D;k fLFkfr Fkh vHkh ;kn ugha gSA ml le; dke djus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k ;kn ugha gSA og ;g ugha
dg ldrk fd lu 2002 esa lhesaV oDlZ esa dke djus okys izfrfnu deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 200 gksrh Fkh ;k ughaA
7&i=koyh ij vk;h mHk;i{kdkjku dh lk{; esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd Jhjke lhesaV dh vksj ls ;g izR;{k :ils LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk
vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fnukad 17-12-1987 dks twfu;j vkWijsVj ds in ij dk;Z djuk vkjEHk fd;k ftlds i'pkr vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk mldk
LFkkukarj.k fueksnk ekbZUl esa dj fn;k x;k tks fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh gh v.MjVsfdax dEiuh gS] ftls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk fueksnk ekbZUl dks
vykHkdj o rduhdh :i ls vlk/; gks tkus ds QyLo:i can dj fn;k x;k vkSj vizkFkhZ fu;sktd }kjk izkFkhZ dks fnukad 11-07-2002 ls i`Fkd fd;s
tkus ds laca/k esa i=@uksfVl fnukad 11-06-2002 dks tkjh fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dk viuh cgl esa ;g dFku jgk gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dks bl
lsoki`Fkdrk ds laca/k esa 3 ekg iwoZ uksfVl fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ&Jfed dks vizkFkhZ fu;sktd ds ;gka mls etZ fd;k tkuk pkfg,
Fkk D;ksfd izkFkhZ&Jfed vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds v/khu dk;Zjr deZpkjh Fkk blds vfrfjDr fueksnk ekbZUl tks fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh lEc) QeZ gS ds
canhdj.k ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,u dh ikyuk dh tkuh pkfg, Fkh tks ugha dh x;h gSA blds foijhr vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk eq[; :i ls ;gh
dFku jgk gS fd v.MjVsfdax QeZ fueksnk ekbZUl ds ;gka dsoy ek= 13 deZpkjh dk;Zjr Fks bl dkj.k ls mDr QeZ ds canhdj.k gsrq /kkjk 25
,Q,Q,Q dh ikyuk fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk uk fd /kkjk 25 ,u dh ikyuk fd;k tkuk] ,sls esa v.MjVsfdax QeZ fueksnk ekbZUl ds canhdj.k dh
dk;Zokgh iw.kZr;k fof/kd :i ls dh x;h gS vkSj blh ds rgr vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls 1 ekg dk uksfVl Hkh tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ Jfed dks ns;
jkf'k;ksa dk Hkqxrku fd;s tkus gsrq pSd o i= jftLVMZ tkjh fd;s x;s gS tks fd muds }kjk izkIr ugha fd;s x;s gSA
gLrxr izdj.k esa ;g Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fnukad 17-12-1987 dks twfu;j vkWijsVj ds in ij
dk;Z djuk vkjEHk fd;k rFkk ftls izn'kZ MCY;w- 2 Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ] dksVk ds QkeZ uEcj , ds tfj;s fVfdV QkWj ijekusUV ds :i esa fVfdV la[;k
MCY;w Vh 58156 tkjh dj Jfed dks twfu;j vkWijsVj ds :i esa ijekusUV fd;k x;k rFkk ftlds i'pkr izkFkhZ Jfed dks vizkFkhZ Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ]
dksVk }kjk izn'kZ MCY;w- 3 ds tfj;s fnukad 10-10-1993 dks vkWijs'ku ekbUl vkWijs'ku ds in ij inksUur fd;k x;k rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed dks 10 o"kksZ dh
dEiuh ds izfr lefiZr lsok ds miyC/k esa nh?kZ lsok iz'kfLr i= Hkh fnukad 27-04-1998 dks tkjh fd;k x;k tks fd izn'kZ MCY;w- 4 ds :i esa iznf'kZr
gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk mldk LFkkukarj.k fueksnk ekbZUl esa dj fn;s tkus tks fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh gh v.MjVsfdax dEiuh gS] ftls vizkFkhZ
6120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
fu;kstd }kjk fueksnk ekbZUl dks vykHkdj o rduhdh :i ls vlk/; gks tkus ds QyLo:i can dj fn;s tkus vkSj vizkFkhZ fu;sktd }kjk izkFkhZ dks
fnukad 11-07-2002 ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus ds laca/k esa i=@uksfVl fnukad 11-06-2002 dks tkjh fd;s tkus dk rF; Hkh fujis{k :i ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k
gS vkSj bl laca/k esa mHk;i{kdkjku ds e/; dksbZ fookn ugha gSA
8&fookn dh tks fLFkfr mRiUu gksrh gS og bl txg tkdj gksrh gS fd fueksnk ekbZUl o Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ dEiuh] dksVk nks i`Fkd i`Fkd fu;sktd
gS vFkok fueksnk ekbZUl Jhjke lhesaV ds vUrxZr gh ,d laLFkku gSA ,sls esa loZizFke U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k ;g iz'u mHkjdj vkrk gS fd fueksnk
ekbZUl] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ] dksVk }kjk fu;af=r QeZ gS vFkok Lora= QeZ gS tks fd vius v/khuLFk dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa
Lo;a fu.kZ; ys ldrh gS vkSj fueksnk ekbZUl QeZ ds canhdj.k ds laca/k esa leLr izdkj ds fu.kZ; o fu"iknu dh dk;Zokgh dj ldrh gSA
bl laca/k esa tc ge i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; dk voyksdu djrs gSa fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh fu;qfDr Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ }kjk viuh QeZ esa
twfu;j vkWijsVj ds in ij izn'kZ MCY;w- 1 ds tfj;s fnukad 08-11-1988 dks fd;k tkuk] ftlds i'pkr izn'kZ MCY;w- 3 ds tfj;s izkFkhZ Jfed dh
inksUufr vkWijsVj ekbZUl vkWijs'ku ds in ij fnukad 30-10-1993 dks fd;k tkuk] izn'kZ MCY;w- 4 ds tfj;s tks nh?kZ lsok iz'kfLr i= fnukad 27-04-
1998 dks Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ] dksVk }kjk tkjh fd;k tkuk rFkk blds i'pkr vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dk LFkkukarj.k Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ dksVk ls
fueksnk ykbZe LVksu ekbZUl esa dj fn;s tkus dk dFku vius tokc LVsVesaV esa fd;k gS vkSj vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izR;{k :i ls mijksDr lHkh rF;
Lohd`r rF; gSA ,sls esa mDr leLr rF; izkFkhZ Jfed ds laca/k lh/ks :i ls vizkFkhZ fu;kstd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds lkFk tksM+rk gSA vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
}kjk ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd fueksnk ekbZUl vius vki esa ,d Lora= midze gSA tc ge ;gka vizkFkhZ ds }kjk dfFkr mDr dFku dh vksj vkd`"V gksrs
gS ijarq i=koyh dk voyksdu djrs gSa rks ikrs gS fd fueksnk ekbZUl vius vki esa Lora= midze gS rks ,d Lora= midze esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd Jhjke
lhesUV oDlZ }kjk LFkkukarj.k fdl izdkj ls dj fn;k x;k] ;g ,d pkSdkusa okyk fcUnq gS D;ksafd LFkkukarj.k ges'kk ,d midze ds v/khu py jgs
fofHkUu laLFkkuksa@foHkkxksa@izfr"Bkuksa esa gh fd;k tk ldrk gS] tks vius vki esa ,d Lora= midze gS ogka LFkkukarj.k laHko ugha gSA ,sls esa vc rd
ds ijh'khyu ls fueksnk ekbZUl tgka ij vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dk LFkkukarj.k gksuk dfFkr fd;k x;k gS ,d Lora= midze gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA
fueksnk ekbZUl ,d Lora= midze dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gks bl laca/k esa tc ge lk{; dk voyksdu djrs gSa rks vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls
fueksnk ekbZUl ds canhdj.k ds i'pkr izkFkhZ Jfed dks tks fueksnk ekbZUl ds canhdj.k ds laca/k esa rFkk izkFkhZ Jfed dh lsokvksa dh vko';drk u gksus
rFkk izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ds laca/k esa tkjh uksfVl fnukad 11-06-2002 dks tkjh fd;k x;k gS og i= izn'kZ MCY;w- 5 ,oa izn'kZ ,e- 2 Jhjke lhesUV
oDlZ ds ysVj isM ij tkjh fd;k x;k gS ftl ij tkjh djus okys vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj Hkh Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds lhfu;j okbZl izslhMsUV ds gksuk
izdV gSA blds vfrfjDr izn'kZ ,e- 3 tks fd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds ysVj isM ij tkjh fd;k x;k gS ftlesa izkFkhZ tks fd fueksnk ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr
Fkk] dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q ds tfj;s eqvkotk jkf'k fueksnk ekbZUl ds dk;kZy; ls fnukad 15-07-2002 dks izkIr djus dk vadu fd;k
x;k gS vkSj mDr i=@uksfVl ij Hkh tkjhdrkZ lhfu;j okbZl izslhMsaV] Jhjke lhsesUV oDlZ ds gh gLrk{kj gksuk izdV gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ Jfed
dks mldh eqvkotk jkf'k mlds irs ij tfj;s Mkd jftLVMZ izn'kZ,e- 4 ds tfj;s fHktok;k x;k gS] mDr i= Hkh Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds ysVj isM ij
tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj tkjhdrkZ lhfu;j okbZl izslhMsaV gksuk izdV gSA blds vfrfjDr vizkFkhZ fu;sktd dh vksj ls izn'kZ ,e- 8 izkFkhZ dks tkjh fd;k
x;k gS ftlesa izkFkhZ Jfed ds vodk'k [kkrs ds isVs ns; jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djus ds laca/k esa i= tkjh fd;k x;k gS] tks fd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds
ysVj isM ij tkjh fd;k x;k gS vkSj ml ij tkjhdrkZ ds :i esa tujy eSustj ds gLrk{kj gksuk izdV gSA mDr lHkh nLrkost os nLrkost gS ftuds
}kjk izkFkhZ Jfed ls lEc) :i esa i=kpkj fd;k x;k vkSj mu lHkh esa Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ tkjhdrkZ jgk gS vkSj ml ij tkjhdrkZ ds :i esa Jhjke
lhesUV oDlZ ds vf/kd`r okbZl izslhMsaV o tujy eSustj ds gLrk{kj gksuk izdV gS tks fd lh/ks :i esa izkFkhZ Jfed o vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk laca/k
LFkkfir djrh gS vkSj fdlh izdkj dk i=kpkj izkFkhZ Jfed dks fu;qDr djus rFkk lsok i`Fkd djus ds laca/k esa fueksnk ekbZUl dh vksj ls ugha fd;k
x;k gS ftls fd vizkFkhZ fu;sktd }kjk Lora= bZdkbZ gksuk dfFkr fd;k gS tks fd eq[; :ils iz'uxr fcUnq gSA
9&ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa izkFkhZ Jfed o vU; deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ,l-ch- flfoy fjV fiVh'ku la[;k 3785@2022 nk;j dh x;h Fkh ftlesa
ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; ikfjr dj fnukad 30-01-2003 dks ;g vkns'k fn;k x;k fd fueksnk ekbZUl Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ dk
vuU; Hkkx gS vFkok ugha] bl vo/kkj.kh; iz'u dks ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls mRrfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk vfirq bl laca/k esa i{kdkjku dks lacaf/kr
le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izdj.k dks j[kuk pkfg, rFkk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds }kjk ;fn fdlh izdkj dk lek/kku ugha fudkyk tk ldsxk ml
ifjfLFkfr esa vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu dks jsQzsal ds tfj;s vf/kdj.k ds le{k vf/kfu.kZ; gsrq izsf"kr fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA
blds vfrfjDr izn'kZ ,e- 11 tks fd Hkkjr ljdkj ds Je foHkkx }kjk tkjh i= gS ftlesa Jh ch ,l jkBkSM+] ekbZUl eSustj] fueksnk
eksbZUl] Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ] Jhjke uxj] dksVk ds uke ls i=kpkj fd;k x;k gS tks fd n'kkZrk gS fd fueksnk ekbZUl Jhjke lhesUV dk gh midze gSA
blds vfrfjDr izn'kZ ,e- 19 jktLFkku ljdkj ds [kfut foHkkx dk i= gS ftlesa [kfut ykbZe LVksu gsrq [kuu iV~Vk tkjh fd;k x;k gS og Hkh
Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ,aM dsehdYl dks tkjh fd;k x;k gS] tks fd fueksnk ekbZUl o Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ o Jhjke QfVZykbZtlZ dsehdYl fy- dh vkil
esa lEc)rk izdV djrk gS vkSj fueksnk ekbZUl dks ,d i`Fkd midze ds :i esa nf'kZr ugha djrk gSA blds vfrfjDr izn'kZ ,e- 20] ,e- 21] ,e- 22]
,e 23] ,e 24] ,e- 25] ,e- 26] ,e 27] ,e- 28] ,e- 29] ,e- 30] ,e- 31] ,e- 32] ,e- 33 ,oa ,e- 34 tks fd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds v/khu gh
lapkfyr fueksnk ekbZUl dks gksuk nf'kZr djrs gSa D;ksafd mDr fueksnk ekbZUl ds canhdj.k] ykbZlsal fujLrhdj.k] vns; izek.k i= bR;kfn dh leLr
dk;Zokgh Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds }kjk gh dh x;h gSA bl izdkj ls fueksnk ekbZUl ,oa Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ dk vkil esa lEcU/k gksuk rFkk fueksnk
ekbZUl ,d i`Fkd ,oa Lora= bdkbZ gksuk izekf.kr ugha jgrk gS vkSj uk gh ;g izekf.kr jgrk gS fd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ dk fueksnk ekbZUl ij fdlh
izdkj dk dksbZ fu;a=.k u gksA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks lk{kh lk{; esa izLrqr gqvk gS mlus vius vkidks fMIVh eSustj Mhlh,e gksuk izdV fd;k gS
tcfd ;fn fueksnk ekbZUl ,d Lora= bZdkbZ jgh gksrh rks fueksnk ekbZUl esa rRle; dk;Zjr deZdkj tks bl rjg dh lk{; nsus gsrq l{ke gks dks is'k
fd;k tkrk] bl rjg ls lk{kh dk Lo;a fMIVh eSustj Mhlh,e ds in ij gksdj gLrxr izdj.k esa lk{; nsuk fueksnk ekbZUl dk Mhlh,e ds lkFk
lEc)rk izdV djrk gS vkSj fueksnk ekbZUl dks Lora= bZdkbZ ds :i esa gksus ls oftZr djrk gSA mDr xokg us viuh lk{; esa iwjh rgj ls izR;sd
nLrkosth lk{; dks Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds }kjk tkjh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] blds vfrfjDr vizkFkhZ lk{kh }kjk viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh Li"V :i ls
dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk o mijksDr deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;kstd izca/kd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ Fkk] eSustj ykbe LVksu ugha Fkk vkSj Jhjke lhesaV esa
104 odZj dke dj jgs gSaA ,sls esa izkFkhZ ds fu;sktd ds :i esa vizkFkhZ Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ gksuk izekf.kr jgrk gSA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6121
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izn'kZ ,e- 33 ds :i esa [kku foHkkx dks ,d i= tkjh fd;k x;k gS tks Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ,aM dsehdYl dh vksj ls
tkjh fd;k x;k gS ftlesa fueksnk ekbZUl esa 13 deZpkjh dk;Zjr gksus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS vkSj mDr i= ds tkjhdrkZ ds :i esa fueksnk ykbZeLVksu
ekbZUl fueksnk ds ,tsUV ds gLrk{kj gksuk izdV gS tcfd tks ysVjisM gS og Jhjke QVthZykbZtj ,aM dsehdYl dk gksuk izdV gS tcfd fueksnk
ekbZUl esa dh tk jgh leLr dk;Zokgh ;Fkk ogka deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr rFkk muds osru HkRrs rFkk muds laca/k esa leLr izdkj dh dk;Zokgh Jhjke
lhesUV oDlZ }kjk lEikfnr dh tk jgh gS rks ,sls esa Jhjke lhesUV] Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ,aM dsehdYl esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh rFkk fueksnk ekbZUl esa
dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa esa foHksn dSls fd;k tk ldrk gS] fueksnk ekbZUl] Jhjke lhesUV] Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ds v/khu dk;Zjr deZpkjh Mh,llh,y laLFkku
ds v/khu vyx foax vFkok foHkkx t:j gks ldrs gS ftl izdkj ls Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ] Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ] Jhjke js;Ul gSa ijarq mUgsa Mh,llh,y
ls i`Fkd djds rFkk fueksnk ekbZUl dks Lora= bZdkbZ ds :i esa ugha ns[kk tk ldrk gSA ,sls esa Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ] Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ,aM dSehdYl
fy- laLFkku esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh o fueksnk ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr deZpkjh ij tks fu;e dk;ns ykxw gksaxs os leku gksaxsA vc tc rhuksa laLFkku Mh,llh,y
ds rgr gh vkuk izekf.kr gS rks ,sls esa fueksnk ekbZUl ds canhdj.k dh dk;Zokgh dks ;g dgdj fdl rjg vey esa yk;k tk ldrk fd fueksnk
ekbZUl esa ek= 13 deZpkjh Fks blfy, mlds canhdj.k dh dk;Zokgh /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q ds rgr dh tkdj deZpkfj;ksa dks eqvkotk jkf'k vnk dh x;h
gS D;ksafd mu 13 deZpkfj;ksa dk lEcU/k lh/ks :i ls Mh,llh,y ls lEc) laLFkku Jhjke lhesaV oDlZ] Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ,aM dsehdYl fyfeVsM ds
lkFk gksuk izdV gS vkSj ,sls esa fueksnk ekbZUl ds canhdj.k dh dk;Zokgh ds fy, /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q ds rgr u gksdj /kkjk 25 ,u ds rgr dk;Zokgh
dh tkuh Fkh vkSj tgka rd vizkFkhZ lk{kh dh vksj ls ;g lk{; fd ^^vHkh Jhjke lhesaV esa 104 odZj dke dj jgs gS] blds vykok ij Ms dkWUVªsDV
yscj Hkh dke djrh gS vkSj dkWUVªsDVj yscj dh la[;k djhcu 100 gks tkrh gSA** ,sls esa vizkFkhZ lk{kh dk ;g dFku fd muds ;gka vHkh 100 yscj ls
vf/kd dke dj jgh gS ijarq ;g rF; vizkFkhZ dks gh izekf.kr fd;k tkuk Fkk fd tc vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s
tkus dk uksfVl fn;k x;k rRle; muds ;gka 100 ls de Jfed dke dj jgs Fks vFkok ugha] bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls fjdkMZ is'k fd;k tk
ldrk Fkk tks fd ugha fd;k ijarq muds }kjk Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ dks fueksnk ekbZUl ls i`Fkd bZdkbZ ekurs gq, lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS vksj crk;k
x;k gS fd fueksnk ekbZUl esa 13 deZpkjh dk;Zjr Fks ijarq fueksnk ekbZUl vius vki esa ,d Lora= bZdkbZ ugha gS vkSj og gj izdkj ls Jhjke lhesUV
oDlZ ls lEc) bZdkbZ gS ftlds rgr deZpkfj;ska dh la[;k dh x.kuk dsoy fueksnk ekbZUl ds fglkc ls fd;k tkuk ;qfDr;qDr ugha gS D;ksafd tc
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds rgr canhdj.k fd;k tkdj deZdkjksa dh NaVuh dk iz'u mRiUu gksrk gS rks deZdkj dks dsoy fueksnk ekbZUl ls
tksM+dj ugha ns[kk tkuk pkfg, vfirq mls laiw.kZ laLFkku ftlds rgr mldh fu;qfDr dh x;h gS rFkk ftlds rgr mldk LFkkukarj.k dgha Hkh fd;k
tk ldrk gS mu lHkh foHkkxksa@laLFkkuksa esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ds :i esa ns[kk tkuk pkfg,] tcfd Jfed dh lsok i`Fkdrk dh fnukad ds oDr vizkFkhZ
fu;kstd ds ;gka 100 ls de deZpkfj;ksa ds gksus ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA
i=koyh ds voyksdu o ijh'khyu ds vuqdze esa bl fcUnq ij lw{erk ls foospu fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka
izkFkhZ dks lsok i`Fkd ds laca/k esa uksfVl fn;s tkus ds le; vizkFkhZ laLFkku eas fdrus Jfed dk;Zjr Fks] ftlds rgr ;g ns[kk tkuk gS fd vizkFkhZ ij
v/;k; 5 d ykxw gksrk gS ;k v/;k; 5 [k] D;ksafd v/;k; 5 d ogka ykxw gksrk gS tgka deZdkjksa dh la[;k 100 ls de gS vkSj v/;k; 5 [k ogka ykxw
gksrk gS tgka deZdkjksa dh la[;k 100 ;k mlls vf/kd gSA mijksDr foospu ls izdV gS fd Mh,llh,y laLFkku ls lEc) ;k mlds v/khu laLFkku esa
Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ,oa Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ,aM dsehdYl ,oa fueksnk ekbZUl rhuksa dks ,d gh m|ksx QeZ Mh,llh,y ds rgr ekuk tkuk izekf.kr
jgrk gS D;ksafd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ,oa Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ds deZpkfj;ksa dh la[;k 100 ls vf/kd gS vkSj fueksnk ekbZUl esa dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa dks
muls vyx djds ugha ns[kk tk ldrk D;ksafd bu deZpkfj;ksa ds LFkkukarj.k vkil esa ,d nwljs foHkkx esa gksuk laiw.kZ laLFkku esa 100 ls vf/kd
deZdkjksa ds gksus dh iqf"V djrk gSA vizkFkhZ xokg us viuh lk{; esa iwjh rgj ls izR;sd nLrkosth lk{; dks Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds }kjk tkjh gksuk
Lohdkj fd;k gS] blds vfrfjDr vizkFkhZ lk{kh }kjk viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dk o mijksDr deZpkfj;ksa dk
fu;kstd izca/kd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ Fkk] eSustj ykbe LVksu ugha Fkk vkSj vHkh Jhjke lhesaV esa 104 odZj dke dj jgs gSa ijarq rRle; muds ;gka
100 ls de deZpkjh dk;Zjr Fks bl laca/k esa dksbZ ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ugha nh x;h gS vfirq vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc esa fueksnk ekbZal esa 100
ls de deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa bUdkj fd;s tkus ds lkFk&lkFk vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dk vius tokc rFkk nkSjkus cgl Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ esa rRle; 100
ls de deZpkjh gksus ds laca/k esa dksbZ dFku ugha gS] tks fd izkFkhZ ds fu;kstd ds :i esa vizkFkhZ Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ds ;gka rRle; 100 ls vf/kd
deZdkj fu;ksftr jgus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djrk gSA Qyr% mijksDr foospu ls ;g izekf.kr jgrk gS fd Jfed dks lsok i`Fkd fd;s tkrs le;
vizkFkhZ foHkkx Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ esa 100 ls vf/kd deZpkjh dk;Zjr Fks vkSj izkFkhZ fueksnk ekbZUl esa vizkFkhZ fu;sktd ds vkns'kksa dh vuqikyuk esa
dk;Zjr FkkA
,sls esa vizkFkhZ fueksnk ekbZUl ds canhdj.k ds laca/k esa v/;k; 5 [k ykxw gksuk izdV gksrk gS vkSj tcfd v/;k; 5 [k ykxw gksrk gS rks
canhdj.k gsrq /kkjk 25 ,u dh ikyuk lqfuf'pr fd;k tkuk vko';d gks tkrk gS tcfd vizkFkhZ foHkkx dh vksj ls /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q ds tfj;s
canhdj.k ds rgr deZdkj dks ,d ekg dk uksfVl fn;k x;k gS tcfd /kkjk 25 ,u ds rgr rhu ekg dk uksfVl deZdkj dks fn;k tkuk visf{kr o
vkKkid Fkk ftldh ikyuk gLrxr izdj.k esa ugha fd;k tkuk izdV gSA
/kkjk 25 ,u deZdkjksa dh NaVuh ds fy, iqjksHkkO; 'krZ gS ftlesa ;g Li"V izko/kku gS fd %& fdlh ,sls vkS|ksfxd LFkkiu ftls ;g
v/;k; ykxw gksrk gS fu;ksftr fdlh deZdkj dh tks fdlh fu;kstd ds v/khu de ls de ,d o"kZ dh fujarj lsok esa jg pqdk gS ml fu;kstd
}kjk NaVuh rHkh dh tk,xh tc fd deZdkj dks rhu ekg dk fyf[kr ,slh lwpuk ns nh xbZ gks ftlesa NaVuh ds dkj.k minf'kZr fd, x, gks vkSj
lwpuk dh dkykof/k dk volj gks x;k gks ;k ,slh lwpuk ds cnys esa deZpkj dks lwpuk dh dkykof/k ds fy, etnwjh dk lank; dj fn;k x;k gSA
,sls esa mijksDr foospu ls ;g rF; Hkyh Hkkafr izekf.kr jgrk gS fd fueksnk ekbZUl esa 13 deZpkjh gksus dk eryc ;g ugha gS fd vizkFkhZ
fu;sktd ds ;gka 100 ls de deZpkfj;ksa dk;Zjr Fks D;ksafd fueksnk ekbZUl vius vki esa ,d Lora= bZdkbZ dk vfLrRo ugha j[krh gS vfirq fueksnk
ekbZUl ,d v.MjVsfdax bZdkbZ gS tks fd Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ ,oa Jhjke QVhZykbZtlZ ,aM dsehdYl ds lkFk lEc) QeZ gksdj Mh,llh,y
¼Mhlh,e½ ds vUrxZr dk;Zjr laLFkku gS] ftuesa 100 ls vf/kd deZdkj gksuk izekf.kr gS vkSj ,sls esa vizkFkhZ dks /kkjk 25 ,Q,Q,Q ds rgr ,d
ekg dk uksfVl fn;k tkdj NaVuh fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gS vfirq izkFkhZ dks /kkjk 25 ,u ds rgr 3 ekg iwoZ uksfVl fn;k tkuk vkKkid
Fkk] ,sls esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd vius nkf;Ro ls cp ugha ldrkA ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i Jfed jktsUnz izlkn cSjkxh dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd Jhjke lhesUV
oDlZ] Mh,llh,y] dksVk ds }kjk fnukad 11-07-2002 dks lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gksuk izekf.kr ugah jgrk gS ,oa lEizsf"kr
6122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
funsZ'k@jsQzsUl blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ^^AIR 1995 SC 1163 Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Vs. H.S.W.C. Ltd.
Employees Union Hyderabad.^^ rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;kasa ds fHkUu gksus ls vizkFkhZ buesa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh
ugha gS
10&vc tgkW rd izkFkhZ ds vuqrks"k dk iz'u gS] U;k;kf/kdj.k us vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku djds izkFkhZ ds
lsok i`Fkddj.k dks voS/k eku fy;k x;k gSA Jfed jktsUnz izlkn cSjkxh dk nsgkolku fnukad 14-02-2019 dks gks pqdk gS vkSj ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i
i=koyh ij Jfed ds okfjlku crkSj izkFkhZx.k izfrLFkkfir fd;s tk pqds gSA fdUrq blds lkFk gh U;k;ky; ds /;kukUrxZr ;g rF; Hkh egRoiw.kZ gS
fd izkFkhZi{k us vius izdj.k lEcU/kh ,d yEch dkuwuh yM+kbZ yM+h gS bl nkSjku mudks vkfFkZd o ekufld osnuk Hkh >syuh iM+h gS rFkk Jfed
jktsUnz izlkn cSjkxh }kjk vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka fnukad 17-12-1987 ls 11-07-2002 rd 14 lky 6 ekg rd dh vof/k rd dk;Z fd;k tkuk
izekf.kr gSA vr% izdj.k ds leLr rF;] ifjfLFkfr;ksa o Nagar Parishad, Kota at present Nagar Nigam, Kota through its
Commissioner Vs. Sita Ram Son of Shri Kalu Lal through Secretary, Raj. Trade Union & Legal Advisor, Nagar
Parishad Employees Union, Kota & Ors.-S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7064/2008 Date of Order 01/04/2022 U;kf;d
n`"Vkar esa izdV fd;s x;s vfHker dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izkFkhZi{k dks leLr vkuq"kafxd ykHkksa ds vuqrks"k ds LFkku ij {kfriwfrZ Lo:i ,d eq'r
3]00]000@&:- ¼v{kjs rhu yk[k :i;s½ dh jkf'k vizkFkhZ ls fnyok;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA
gLrxr izdj.k esa ;g Hkh Lohd`r fLFkfr gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izkFkhZ Jfed dks NaVuh jkf'k ds laca/k esa vius tokc esa Li"V
:i ls vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd ^^çkFkhZ dks mls dkuwuh :i ls ns; dEiuls'ku 58]340@& dk fMekaM Mªk¶V gkMkSrh {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad] uheksnk gfj
th dk fnukad 15-07-2002 dks jftLVMZ ,åMhå }kjk Hkstk x;k Fkk] tks fnukad 02-08-2002 dks okfil çkIr gqvkA izkFkhZ dks mlds osru ,oa mikftZr
vodk'k dh jkf'k mlds }kjk fy;s x;s _.k lek;kstu ds i'pkr 14642@& :i;s curh Fkh bls fnukad 02-08-2002 dks gkM+kSrh {kS=h; xzkeh.k cSad
ds fMek.M MªkQ~V }kjk Hkst fn;k x;k tks fnukad 07-08-2002 dks okil izkIr gks x;kA çkFkhZ viuk dEiuls'ku orZeku esa Hkh vius fu;kstd uheksnk
ykbe LVksu ekbUl ls çkIr dj ldrk gSA ,sls esa izdj.k ds fof’k”B rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, U;k;fgr esa ;g vkns’k Hkh fn;k
tkuk lehphu izrhr gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZ i{k 3]00]000@&:- dh vknsf’kr jkf’k izkFkhZi{k dks Hkqxrku djus ds lkFk&lkFk Jfed dks fu;ekuqlkj
Wages Due, Compensation and Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc ds isVs ns; jkf'k dk Hkqxrku izkFkhZi{k dks i`Fkd ls fd;k tkosA bl
izdkj vizkFkhZ i{k 3]00]000@& :i;s dh vuqrks"k LOk:i vknsf'kr jkf'k ds vfrfjDr Wages Due, Compensation and Gratuity, Leave
Encashment etc Hkh izkFkhZi{k dks vnk djsaxs vkSj vkSj izkIr jsQzsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 01-06-2004 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn
dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jfed jktsUnz izlkn cSjkxh dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd tujy eSustj] eSllZ Jhjke lhesUV oDlZ] Mh,llh,y]
dksVk }kjk fnukad 11-07-2002 ls lsok ls i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k ugha gS vr% izkFkhZi{k leLr vkuq"kafxd ykHkksa ds vuqrks"k ds LFkku ij {kfriwfrZ
Lo:i ,d eq'r :i;s 3]00]000@&¼v{kjs rhu yk[k :i;s½ dh jkf'k vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA
lkFk gh mDr jkf'k ds vfrfjDr Wages Due, Compensation and Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc ds isVs Jfed jktsUnz
izlkn cSjkxh dks vizkFkhZ fu;sktd }kjk nsuk 'ks"k gS] og jkf'k Hkh ¼fu;ekuqlkj tks Hkh curh gks½ izkFkhZi{k vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh
gSA bl izdkj Jfed jktsUnz izlkn cSjkxh ds dk;eeqdkeku izkFkhZi{k {kfriwfrZ jkf'k Lo:i 3]00]000@& :i;s v{kjs rhu yk[k :i;s ,oa Jfed dks
ns; Wages Due, Compensation and Gratuity, Leave Encashment etc ds isVs ns; jkf'k ¼fu;ekuqlkj tks Hkh curh gks½ vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA mDr jkf'k vizkFkhZ }kjk vkt ls nks ekg esa izkFkhZi{k dks vnk dh tk,xh] nks ekg esa jkf'k vnk ugha fd, tkus ij
vf/kfu.kZ;@vkns'k dh fnukad ls bl jkf'k ij 7 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls vnk;xh rd C;kt Hkh izkFkhZi{k] vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ls izkIr djus ds
vf/kdkjh gksaxsA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 09-04-2025 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks
izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई ददल्ली, 8 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1650.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार श्रीनाथ इंटरप्राइजेज प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और मोहम्मद तारीफ, जहन्द मजदूर सभा के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोटा, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-(केन्द्रीय) 01/2010
(सीआईएस-96/2014)) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के
साथ 08.09.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं
एल-29011/16/2009-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6123
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2025
S.O. 1650.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central) 01/2010 (CIS-96/2014)) of the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
Shrinath Enterprises Private Limited and Mohammad Tarif, Hind Mazdoor Sabha which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 08.09.2025.
[No. L-29011/16/2009-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k ¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad% vkS-U;k-&01@2010¼lhvkbZ,l&96@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001702010½
fnukad LFkkfir% 18-02-2010
izlax%
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk la[;k L-29011/16/2009-IR(M)
fnukad 28-01-2010
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
e/;
eksgEen rkjhQ iq= Jh euqgj cSx] }kjk la;qDr egkea=h] fgUn etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dkWyksuh] Nkouh] dksVk ¼jkt-½
------izkFkhZ
,oa
izca/kd] JhukFk ,UVjizkbZtst] izk-fy-] pspV] ftyk dksVk ¼jkt-½ ---------vizkFkhZ@fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA
%vf/kfu.kZ;%
fn% 30-05-2025
jktLFkku ljdkj] Je foHkkx dh izklkafxd vf/klwpuk fnukad 28-01-2010 ds }kjk fuEu funsZ'k@fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn
vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼x½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k
x;k gS%&
^^Whether the action of the management of M/s. Shrinath Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Chechat, Distt., Kota relating to
removal from service of Shri Mohd. Tareef w.e.f. 16.11.2008 is legal and justified ? What relief the workman concerned
is entitled to \
2&mDr fookn ds U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed
}kjk mifLFkr gksdj viuk LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ ftUgsa bl
fookn esa vkxs pydj fu;kstd 'kCn ls lacksf/kr fd;k tkosxk us vius v/khuLFk eSdsfud ds dk;Z gsrq lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA fu;kstd us
izkFkhZ dks uoEcj 2008 esa vpkud cqykdj ;g dgk fd rqe ukSdjh ls R;kx i= fy[kdj ns nks] euk djus ij izkFkhZ dks fnukad 16-11-2008 dks
ukSdjh ls gVk fn;kA izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds ;gka ij fnukad 02-02-2002 ls 15-11-2008 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk bl vof/k esa 240 fnu ls
dkQh vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k gSA izkFkhZ dk fookn vkS|ksfxd vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½ ds vUrxZr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA
izkfFkZ;k dks gVkus ls iwoZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ,d ekg dk uksfVl ugha fn;k vkSj u blds cnys esa ,d ekg ds vfxze
osru dk Hkqxrku gh fd;k gS blds vfrfjDr fu;kstd us izkfFkZ;k dks ukSdjh ls fudkyus ds iwoZ NaVuh dk eqvkotk Hkh vnk ugha fd;k gS uk gh
vkWQj fd;k gSA fu;kstd us izkfFkZ;k dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds iwoZ jktLFkku vkS|ksfxd fookn :Yl 1958 ds :y 77 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj
ofj"Brk lwph dk izdk'k ugha fd;k gS rFkk ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds le; izkfFkZ;k ls dfu"B vU; deZdkj Jfed fu;kstd ds v/khu lsok esa
fu;ksftr FksA bl izdkj fu;kstd us ykLV de QLVZ xks ds fl)kar dh vogsyuk djds ukSdjh ls gVk;k gStks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th dh Hkh
vogsyuk gSA izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds ckn fu;sktd us izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij vU; dks fu;ksftr dj fy;k gS vksj mls fu;sktu dk dksbZ
volj ugha fn;k gS tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,p ds izko/kkuksa dh vikyuk gS vksj vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl esa vkrk gSA var esa izkFkhZ us fuosnu fd;k
fd mldks fu;kstd ds ;gka fiNys laiw.kZ osru lfgr leLr fiNys ykHkksa ds lsok lfgr cgky djok;k tkos rFkk izkFkhZ dks fu;kstd ls [kpkZ
eqdnek Hkh fnyok;k tkosA
3&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks vU; laLFkku esa vPNk dke fey
tskus ij mlds }kjk fnukad 17-11-2008 ls R;kx i= nsdj viuk leLr cdk;k osru izkIr dj dk;Z NksM+ dj x;k gS] izfri{kh us dHkh Hkh mls ugha
fudkyk gSA izkFkhZ nksgjk ykHk izkIr djus dh xjt ls fookn ysdj vk;k gSA bl dkj.k ls izLrqr izdj.k esa vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku
ykxw ugha gksus ls izFke n`"V;k gh izLrqr izdj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA var esa izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
6124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4&lk{; esa izkFkhZi{k dh vksj ls Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls vizkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k }kjk ftjg dh x;h gSA vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls xokg
dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k ijarq ckotwn i;kZIr volj xokg dks ftjg gsrq mifLFkr ugha ykus ij ftjg dk volj can dj fn;k x;k ftlls
vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i= lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftldk ;Fkk le; mYys[k fd;k
tkosxkA
5& vkt fn- 30-05-2025 dks vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls nksigj 4-00 cts rd fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ds izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh xbZA
pwafd ;g izdj.k 20 o"kZ ls vf/kd iqjkuk gS ,oa bl U;k;ky; ds lcls iqjkus izdj.kksa esa la- 22 ntZ gS] ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ,oa ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; }kjk le;≤ ij iqjkus izdj.kksa ds fuiVkjs ds laca/k esa tkjh vkns'kksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k dks vfuf'prdky rd ds fy,
foyfEcr ugha j[kk tk ldrk gS] vr% izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dh cgl ds vuqlkj rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ds vuqlkj gh bl izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k
fd;k tk jgk gSA
6&gLrxr izdj.k esa U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ Jfed dks fnukad 16-11-2008 ls lsok ls i`Fkd djuk mfpr ,oa
oS/k gS \
7&bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftleas mlus LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh
gS rFkk ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og izfri{kh ds ;gka ij eSdsfud dk dke djrk Fkk] og dekuh osfYMax dk dke djrk FkkA og gSM
eSdsfudy ds ikl dke djrk Fkk] og gsYij ds :i esa dke djrk FkkA eSdsfud gVk fn;k Fkk mlds ckn mls j[kk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd og
fnukad 01-09-2003 ls izfri{kh ds ;gka dke dj jgk Fkk cfYd mlus 09-09-2003 ls dke 'kq: fd;k gSA mlus fnukad 16-11-2008 ls tkuk can fd;k
Fkk] mlus tkuk can ugah fd;k mls rks vkus ds fy, euk dj fn;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd mlus R;kx i= fy[kdj fn;k gksA ;g lgh gS fd mlus
15-11-2008 rd dke fd;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd fnukad 17-11-2008 ls dke NksM+dj pyk x;kA
8&izkFkhZ }kjk mldh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 16-11-2008 ls iwoZ fnukad 02-02-2002 ls 15-11-2008 rd vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa 240 fnu ls vf/kd
le; rd vizkFkhZ ds v/khu fu;qDr gksdj dk;Z djus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk mls fnukad 16-11-2008
dks vpkud ukSdjh ls gVk fn;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gSA blds foijhr vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds mDr dFkuksa dk [k.Mu fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g
Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a viuh lsok dk ifjR;kx fd;k gS vkSj Lo;a LosPNk ls ukSdjh NksM+dj x;k gSA
9&bl laca/k esas izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr dh gS muesa dsoy izn'kZ MCY;w- 1 yxk;r 4 izLrqr fd;s gSa tks fd le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds
le{k fd;s x;s vkosnu] vizkFkhZ dk tokc rFkk vlQy le>kSrk okrkZ izfrosnu gS] blds vfrfjDr dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ds tokc esa vizkFkhZ }kjk Li"V dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izfri{kh dks nwljh txg
vPNh ukSdjh fey x;h Fkh bl dkj.k izkFkhZ fnukad 17-11-2008 ls LosPNk ls dk;Z NksM+dj x;k gSA blh ds vuqdze esa izkFkhZ }kjk viuh ftjg esa Hkh
Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd ^^fnukad 17-11-2008 ls dke NksM+dj pyk x;kA** tks ;g Li"V :i ls ;g izekf.kr djrh gS fd izkFkhZ us Lo;a gh dke
ij vkuk can dj fn;k] ,sls esa izkFkhZ dh Lo;a dh bl laca/k esa LohdkjksfDr jgh gS fd mlus lsok dk ifjR;kx fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ,slh dksbZ
lk{; izLrqr ugha dh x;h gS ftlls ;g izdV gks fd mlds }kjk vizkFkhZ ds ;gka ij mldh lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 16-11-2008 ds i'pkr iqu% tkus
dk iz;kl fd;k gks rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk mls gVk;s tkus ij mlds }kjk Lo;a dks M~;wVh ToksbZu djk;s tkus ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj dk jftLVMZ
Mkd ds ek/;e ls i=kpkj fd;k x;k gks vfirq fnukad 16-11-2008 dks Lo;a dks lsok ls i`Fkd djus dk dFku djrs gq, lh/ks gh le>kSrk vf/kdkjh
ds le{k fnukad 20-02-2009 dks izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj lsok esas fy;s tkus dk fuosnu dj fn;k x;k] ftlds tokc esa vizkFkhZ dk ,d gh dFku jgk
gS fd Jfed }kjk Lo;a lsok dk ifjR;kx fd;k x;k gS] ftlds i'pkr izkFkhZ ds vuqifLFkr jgus ij ,di{kh; :ils le>kSrk vf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkZuk
i= dk fuLrkj.k djrs gq, vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu lacaf/kr dks izsf"kr dj fn;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr foospu o fo'kys"k.k ds ifjizs{; eas ;g
rF; vf/kd fo'oluh; izrhr gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ fu;kstd }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd ugha fd;k x;k gS cfYd izkFkhZ fnukad 16-11-2008 ls
fu;kstd ds ;gka dHkh mifLFkr ugh gqvk vkSj mlus Lo;a gh viuh lsok R;kx ¼Abandon½ dh gS] Qyr% izkFkhZ dks vf/kfu;ekUrxZr dksbZ laj{k.k
izkIr ugha gksus ls fdlh vuqrks"k dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha ik;k tkrk gS vkSj jsQzsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kker% jktLFkku ljdkj] Je foHkkx }kjk viuh izklkafxd vf/klwpuk fn- 28-01-2010 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@fookn dks blh
vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed eksgEen rkjhQ viuh ekSf[kd ,oa nLrksoth lk{; ls ;g fl) djus esa vlQy jgk fd vizkFkhZ }kjk
izkFkhZ dks fnukad 16-11-2008 ls lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k x;k gks vfirq izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a viuh lsok R;kx ¼Abandon½ dh gS] QyLo:i izkFkhZ eksgEen
rkjhQ vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 30-05-2025 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks
izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6125
नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1651.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (
60/2022) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं- ,y
22012/108/2022-vkbZ-vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025
S.O. 1651.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/108/2022–IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 60 OF 2022
PARTIES:
Sheojee Singh
Vs
Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery MIC, Jhanjra Area, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Shabe Alam, Organising Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
07/07/2025
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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/108/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 22/12/2022 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery MIC, Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workmen
for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery MIC, Jhanjra Area, M/s. E.C. Ltd. in not
fixation the pay properly in the regularized post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer to Sri Sheojee Singh is fair,
legal & justified? If not, what relief the workman is concerned is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/108/2022-IR(CM-II) dated 22/12/2022 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 60 of 2022 was registered on
26/12/2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
6126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Sheojee Singh submitted written statement on 18/04/2023. Management of ECL also filed their written
statement on 18/04/2023 through the Agent, Jhanjra Project Colliery, ECL. Fact of the workman‘s case in brief is that
Sheojee Singh, an employee of ECL was posted as R.B. Crew. After passing the Mining Sirdarship Examination he was
deployed as Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer(T) for a period of six months as trainee on a remuneration of difference of
wages in Tech. & Supvr. Grade ‗C‘ and pay he used to receive as R.B. Crew. This arrangement was done on the basis of
office order bearing No. GM/JNR/PER/05/2013/3305 dated 08/10.10.2013. After completion of training, the workman
was regularized to the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer, vide office order bearing No. GM/JNR/PER/2014/332
dated 05/06.06.2014. Contention of the workman is that his pay was not fixed in Tech. & Supvr. Grade ‗C‘ in proper
manner and while fixation of pay his pay became less than the wages he used to receive as R.B. Crew during the training
period. Further contention of the workman is that basic pay of R.B. Crew is Rs. 54,501.43 per month but while fixing his
basic pay in the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer in Tech. & Supvr. Grade ‗C‘ his pay was reduced to Rs. 52,914.01
per month and difference of basic pay was not considered at the time of pay fixation which is illegal.
3.
Representation made by the workman is for restoring his basic pay to Rs. 54,501.43 per month which he
received as R.B. Crew, with retrospective effect i.e. from date of regularization to the post of Mining Sirdar-cum- Shot
Firer. Management did not pay heed to his legitimate claim. Workman was therefore compelled to raise the Industrial
Dispute through Colliery Mazdoor Congress (HMS). The aggrieved workman has prayed for passing necessary Award
by way of fixing his pay in the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer with retrospective effect.
4.
Management contested case by filing written statement. It is stated by the management that after successful
completion of training of six months, Sheojee Singh was regularized in the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer in
Tech. & Supvr. Grade ‗C‘ and his pay was fixed in monthly rated category on account of change of his designation.
Management denied that pay fixation of the concerned workman in Tech. & Supvr. Grade ‗C‘ has been done in an illegal
manner and further asserted that demand of the union for protection of pay of the workman is not legally tenable.
According to the management, wages of the concerned workman has been protected as per rules of the company and no
illegality has been committed. Finally, it is urged that fixation of pay of the workman done by the management is totally
justified and he is not entitled to any relief.
5.
Point for consideration is whether the pay of Sheojee Singh has been properly fixed on his regularization to the
post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer and if not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
In support of the case, Sheojee Singh has been examined as Workman Witness-I. He filed an affidavit-in-chief
in support of the case where he reiterated his case in the pleading. In course of examination, witness produced the
following documents:-
(i)
Copy of office order dated 10/10/2013 for imparting training of six months is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of office order dated 06/06/2014 for regularization of workman to the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot
Firer is produced as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of pay slip for the month of August, 2014 i.e. after regularization is produced as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of pay slip in respect of his posting as R.B. Crew i.e. before regularization in the post of Mining Sirdar-
cum-Shot Firer is Exhibit W-4.
In Cross-Examination, workman witness deposed that on his regularization to the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-
Shot Firer his basic pay was reduced from what he received as R.B. Crew. It further transpires that as a
R.B. Crew, he was a daily rated worker and on his regularization he became a monthly rated workman. Witness denied
that he is not entitled to receive difference of wages according to the terms of circular dated 04/10/2012 issued by the
General Manager (P&IR), ECL Head Quarters. Witness further denied that he is not entitled to receive difference of
wages after his regularization in the new post or that he is only entitled to charge allowance.
7.
Mr. Alaric Oneal Lyndem, Manager (Pers) of Jhanjra Project Colliery has been examined as Management
Witness-I. He filed his affidavit-in-chief in support of the case in the pleading of the management. During examination,
witness produced the following documents:-
(i)
Copy of office order dated 10/10/2013 by which Sheojee Singh was deployed as Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer
is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of office order dated 06/06/2014 by which Sheojee Singh was regularized to the post of Mining Sirdar-
cum-Shot Firer w.e.f. 23/04/2014 after completion of six months is produced as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copies of two pay slips of the workman for the months of May, 2014 and August, 2014 are produced as
Exhibits M-3 and M-4 respectively.
(iv)
Copy of document containing basic and increment details of the workman prepared by the Dy. Manager
(Systems) of Jhanjra Area, ECL is produced as Exhibit M-5.
(v)
Copy of guidelines for promotion and selection is produced as Exhibit M-6.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6127
In cross-examination, management witness deposed that by office order dated 10/10/2013, Sheojee Singh was
deployed in the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer and he was assured payment of difference of wages. On
06/06/2014 he was regularized as Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer w.e.f. 23/04/2014. Management Witness admittedly did
not produce any calculation sheet showing difference of wages for the period from 01/01/2014 to 01/08/2014. It
transpires from evidence of the management witness that minimum basic pay of Category ‗C‘ in the post of Mining
Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer was Rs. 19,035.02 per month and as the basic pay of the workman had surpassed the starting basic
pay of Category ‗C‘ employees, calculation sheet showing difference of wages from 01/01/2014 to 01/08/2014 has not
been produced. Management Witness identified copy of pay slip of Sheojee Singh from January, 2014 where he was paid
a basic of Rs. 904.97 per day and an additional pay of Rs. 583.77 per month during the first six months. Copies of pay
slips bearing Exhibits W-5, W-6, W-7, W-8 and W-9 were identified. Management Witness denied that workman has
been deprived of his legitimate pay after his regularization to the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer.
8.
Mr. Shabe Alam, union representative arguing the case on behalf of the aggrieved workman submitted that
Sheojee Singh was initially posted as R.B. Crew in Category-VI at Jhanjra Project Colliery, ECL. After completion of
Mining Sirdarship course, he was deployed as Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer (T) in Tech. & Supvr. Grade ‗C‘ for six
months as a trainee on the basis of letter dated 08/10.10.2013. For the first six months of training workman received
difference of pay but after completion of training successfully and on his regularization to the post of Mining Sirdar-
cum-Shot Firer, his pay was reduced and was not fixed in a proper manner. Union representative claimed that as per
office order dated 05/06.06.2014 (Exhibit M-2) issued by the Chief Manager (Pers), Jhanjra Area, workman was entitled
to the fixation of pay to be done by the Associated Finance of Unit. Referring to Implementation Instruction No. 23 and
decision taken at the Standardisation Committee Meeting held on 23/01/1980, it is submitted that in paragraph fifty of
Chapter XII of the Coal Wage Board Report it is mentioned that when an employee of lower category temporarily works
in place of a higher category workman, he should be paid an officiating allowance of ten percent of his total wages or
statutory pay of the higher category worker for whom he deputises, whichever is higher. It is further laid down that
where an employee in a lower category works in the place of a workman of higher category, he should be entitled to
payment of officiating allowance which shall be the difference between his wage and the minimum of the higher
category, if such minimum is ―higher‖ than his existing pay and in case by this method of adjustment, he gets less than
one increment in the officiating scale, he should be given one increment in that scale. In the event of the existing pay of
the officiating workman being higher than the minimum of the scale of pay of the higher category in which he works,
than his existing pay should be adjusted into the next higher step in the higher category‘s scale and he should be given
one increment in that scale. Mr. Alam argued that in the instant case, workman was a daily wager of Rs. 904.97 and on
working for twenty six days his basic pay would reach Rs. 23,529.22. After the workman was regularized to the post of
Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer w.e.f. 23/04/2014, his basic pay was fixed by multiplying his daily wages with number of
working days. Referring to Exhibit W-3, the pay slip of the workman for the month of August, 2014, it is argued that the
pay of workman was simply converted from daily rate to monthly rate after his regularization to a higher category and he
did not receive the amount which he was receiving during his training period as difference of wages. Union
representative argued that on regularization the workman is entitled to an increment of three percent of basic wage as on
01/08/2014.
9.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate argued that Sheojee Singh did not get promotion to the post of Mining Sirdar-
cum-Shot Firer and he is not entitled to any increment. Ld. Advocate submitted that posting of Sheojee Singh as Mining
Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer was made through selection process at entry point, therefore, he was only entitled to basic initial
pay fixed for Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer. It is argued that the Industrial Dispute has no merit and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
10.
I have considered the rival contention of the workman and the management of ECL, arguments advanced by the
union and ld. Advocate as well as pleading of parties, evidence adduced and documents produced. It is evident that
Sheojee Singh was initially posted as R.B. Crew and thereafter he underwent training as Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer
for six months. On the basis of letter dated 08/10.10.2013 (Exhibit W-1) he received his daily wages while he worked as
Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer (T) and he was paid difference of wages. By order bearing No. GM/JNR/PER/2014/332
dated 05/06.06.2014 the workman was regularized as Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer in Tech. and Supvr. Grade ‗C‘ w.e.f.
23/04/2014 and it was also provided in the order that his pay would be fixed by the Associated Finance of Unit. There is
no dispute that the workman was regularized to the new post as per office order (Exhibit W-2). From the pay slip of
May, 2014, it appears that basic pay of the workman was Rs. 23,529.22 and he received a gross pay of Rs. 48,423.75. In
the month of August, 2014, his basic pay was Rs. 20,814.31 and gross monthly pay was Rs. 55,703.61. It can be
gathered from the pleading and arguments of the management that workman has not been granted any increment in his
basic pay on being regularized to the higher post. At this juncture it would be appropriate to take recourse to the
provisions of Implementation Instruction No. 23 of NCWA-II. Referring to Implementation Instruction No. 23 and
decision taken at the Standardisation Committee Meeting held on 23/01/1980, it is submitted that in para fifty of Chapter
XII of the Coal Wage Board Report it is mentioned that when an employee of lower category temporarily works in place
of a higher category workman he should be paid an officiating allowance of ten percent of his total wages or statutory
pay of the higher category worker for whom deputises, whichever is higher. It is further laid down that where an
employee in a lower category works in the place of a workman of higher category, he should be entitled to payment of
officiating allowance which shall be the difference between his wage and the minimum of the higher category, if such
6128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
minimum is ―higher‖ than his existing pay and in case by this method of adjustment, he gets less than one increment in
the officiating scale, he should be given one increment of three percent in that scale. In the event of the existing pay of
the officiating workman being higher than the minimum of the scale of pay of the higher category in which he works,
than his existing pay should be adjusted into the next higher step in the higher category‘s scale and he should be given
one increment in that scale.
11.
It appears from the pay slips of the workman for the months of January, 2014, February, 2014, May, 2014, June,
2014 and July, 2014, produced as Exhibits W-5 to W-9 that basic pay of workman per day was Rs. 904.97. On
converting daily basic pay to monthly pay by way of multiplying basic pay with twenty six days, the monthly basic pay
of the workman would appear to be Rs. 23,529.22. Therefore, on regularization of the workman in higher category of
Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer, the pay of the workman in the post of R.B. Crew, in lower category appears to be higher
than the minimum scale of pay in the higher category where he was regularized subsequently. Therefore, according to
the recommendation of the Standardisation Committee Meeting dated 23/01/1980 workman would be entitled to a pay
with increment of three percent in the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer. Though the workman has been regularized
to the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer w.e.f. 23/04/2014 I find that there was reduction in pay, which has been
simply fixed by summing up basic daily wage for twenty six days of working period in monthly rated and without taking
into consideration of decision of the Standardisation Committee Meeting. Management of ECL has placed details of
monthly basic, DA rate and increment amount in respect of Sheojee Singh, U. Man No. 129420, which has been
admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-5. Workman was regularized to the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer w.e.f
23/04/2014 as per order dated 06/06/2014. His basic pay at monthly rate was fixed at Rs.23,529.22 w.e.f. 01/08/2014. It
is true that the workman did not get any promotion on his posting as Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer, which is a selection
post at entry point and he is not entitled to any promotional benefit. However, on his regularization to the new post, the
workman is entitled to receive one increment of three percent of the minimum of the scale of pay of higher category in
which he is regularized. Management is ECL is therefore directed to fix his basic pay w.e.f. his date of regularization to
the post of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer w.e.f. 23/04/2014 and also pay him arrears of basic pay and DA within two
months from communication of order.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Jhanjra Project Colliery, ECL. Management
of ECL is directed to fix the pay of Sheojee Singh by granting him one increment of three percent of his basic pay in the
higher category of Mining Sirdar-cum-Shot Firer. Arrears towards basic and Dearness Allowance shall be disbursed to
the workman within two months from date of communication of Award. Let an Award be drawn up in the light of my
above
discussion.
Let
copies
of
Award
be
communicated
to
the
Ministry
for
information
and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1652.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (
50/2006) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. ,y-22012/275/2005-vkbZ vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025
S.O. 1652.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 50/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025
[No. L-22012/275/2005 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 50 OF 2006
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6129
PARTIES: Radha Nayak
(Represented by the legal heirs)
Vs.
Management of Amritnagar Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
25.06.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/275/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of Amritnagar Colliery under Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman
for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the Management of Amritnagar Colliery under Kunustoria Area of M/s. ECL in
dismissing Shri Radhya Nayak, U.G. Loader w.e.f. 17.5.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the
workman enitled ? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/275/2005-IR(CM-II) dated 17.08.2006 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 18.09.2006 and an
order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Mr. H. L. Soni, Assistant General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on 22.01.2007
on behalf of Radha Nayak, the dismissed workman. The fact of the case is that Radha Nayak was a permanent employee
at Amritnagar Colliery under Kunustoria Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The workman served as an Underground
Loader, bearing U. M. No. 476745. Due to prolonged illness Radha Nayak remained absent from duty from 19.07.2001
to 24.10.2001 which was beyond his control. At the relevant time he was under the treatment of Medical Practitioner and
after recovery he reported for his duty on 24.10.2001 along with medical certificate. Management did not permit him to
join and issued a Charge Sheet against him bearing No. M/4100/01/316 dated 24.10.2001. The workman did not receive
any Notice of enquiry and could not participate in the enquiry proceeding. The Enquiry Officer held ex-parte enquiry
without giving adequate opportunity to the workman to defend his case. Gross injustice was caused to the workman by
denying principles of natural justice. The General Manager, Kunustoria Area thereafter issued a letter of dismissal of the
workman bearing letter No. AKNT/P&IR/26A/1036 dated 17.05.2002. It is claimed by the union that the past record of
the workman is good and he did not face any punishment on previous occasion. It is therefore claimed that dismissal of
Radha Nayak was illegal and unjustified and prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal and payment of full back
wages along with other consequential benefits.
3.
On 07.08.2017 an order was passed whereby the legal heirs of Radha Nayak were substituted due to his death
on 01.05.2011.
4.
In this case no written statement was filed by the management, after several opportunity.
5.
Union examined Dilip Kumar Nayak, son of Radha Nayak as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed an affidavit-in-
chief wherein he stated that his father was continuously sick and remained absent from duty from 19.07.2001 to
24.10.2001 due to his illness, which was beyond his control and he was undergoing medical treatment during that period.
After he was declared medically fit, he went to resume duty on 24.10.2001 but on that date a Charge Sheet was issued
to him. The witness further stated that his father attended work for 246 days in the year 1999, 176 days in the year 2000,
and 94 days in the year 2001 and he was neither a habitual absentee nor any punishment was awarded against him on
earlier occasion. The witness also stated that the enquiry proceeding was held against his father keeping him in the dark
and he could not attend enquiry proceeding to defend his case. In spite of such facts the General Manager issued an order
of dismissal against him. The witness asserted that the punishment of dismissal passed against his father is harsh and
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct and that during pendency of the Industrial Dispute his father died on
01.05.2011. The witness produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the Death Certificate of Radha Nayak is produced as Exhibit W-1.
6130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii)
Copy of the Fitness Certificate of Radha Nayak dated 24.10.2001, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Chargesheet dated 24.10.2001, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of the Enquiry proceeding dated 09.03.2002, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of the Enquiry Report, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of the second Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2002 / 02.04.2002, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of the Letter of dismissal dated 14/17.05.2002, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii)
Copy of the Legal Heirship Certificate dated 21.06.2023, as Exhibit W-8.
6.
In cross-examination the witness deposed that his father was medically treated by Dr. Senapati Mondal and then
left for his native village. The witness cold not state if his father received any medical treatment at any colliery hospital.
Nothing was produced by the witness to prove that Radha Nayak informed the management of ECL about his absence
from duty. Witness stated that his father submitted reply to the second Show Cause Notice. He denied that Charge
Sheet and Notice of enquiry were served upon his father or that he intentionally stayed away from the enquiry
proceeding.
7.
The case of the management, as disclosed in the affidavit-in-chief of Mr. Dinabandhu Mondal, the Management
Witness No. 1 is that the workman was chargesheeted for his unauthorized absence form 19.07.2001 to 24.10.2001.
Workman failed to submit any reply to the Charge Sheet and a domestic enquiry was held. In spite of issuing several
Notice of enquiry to the charged employee he failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer to defend his case and the
enquiry proceeding was held ex-parte. The charge of misconduct by unauthorized absence was established and the
Disciplinary Authority after considering relevant documents dismissed the workman from service. The witness denied
that the workman suffered from illness or he underwent medical treatment from any medical practitioner. Management
averred that the dismissal of the workman is totally justified. In course of his evidence management witness produced the
following documents :
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 24.10.2001 is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the envelope containing Charge Sheet addressed to the workman, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 20/21.02.2002, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of the postal envelope used to send Notice of enquiry upon the workman, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 28.01.2002, as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of the postal envelope used to serve Notice of enquiry upon the workman, as Exhibit M-5/1.
(vii)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 22.11.2001, as Exhibit M-6.
(viii)
Copy of the postal envelope used to serve Notice of enquiry upon the workman, as Exhibit M-6/1.
(ix)
Copy of the Enquiry proceeding dated 09.03.2002, as Exhibit M-7.
(x)
Copy of the Enquiry Report dated 09.03.2002, as Exhibit M-8.
(xi)
Copy of the second Show Cause Notice, as Exhibit M-9.
(xii)
Copy of the Letter of dismissal of the workman, as Exhibit M-10.
8.
In cross-examination the witness deposed that the Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry were sent to the
workman at his address and they were returned unserved. The period of unauthorized absent was three months and the
workman was dismissed for unauthorized absence. The witness denied that the dismissal of the workman was
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct.
9.
At the time of argument, the union representative as well as the legal heirs of the deceased employee remained
absent without steps. The case pending for nineteen years is taken up for disposal on the basis of material in the record.
10.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that Radha Nayak, the dismissed workman
has expired on 01.05.2011 and he could not adduce any evidence indicating the reason for his absence. It is argued that
Dilip Kumar Nayak, son of Radha Nayak, in his affidavit-in-chief stated that during the period of absence the workman
was under the medical treatment but no medical prescription has been produced. The Charge Sheet against him has been
issued on 24.10.2001 and it is a coincidence that a Medical Certificate, in the name of Radha Nayak, has been issued on
the same date. The workman was declared fit to resume his duty form 25.10.2001 and the Charge Sheet was issued on
24.10.2001, the same is presumed to have been served upon him on the date he reported for his duty i.e., on 24.10.2001.
Except a single medical certificate, issued by a Registered Medical Practitioner the union could not produce any other
document relating to his medical treatment.
11.
It is further argued that the sole workman witness did not disclose the nature of illness suffered by his father.
The Medical Certificate (Exhibit W-2) states that Radha Nayak was treated for dislocation of his Right Hip. The
workman did not undergo any medical treatment at the colliery hospital or central hospital of ECL. No medical
document has been produced to prove that the workman actually had suffered dislocation of his Right Hip. Under such
facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to place reliance upon the Medical Certificate of Radha Nayak (Exhibit W-2)
produced by the union. The workman remained absent for three long months without any intimation to the employer
company. At the time of evidence management produced a copy of postal envelope addressed to Radha Nayak at his
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6131
native place at Ganjam (Odisha) bearing Ref. No. M/4100/01/316 dated 24.10.2001. The document produced as Exhibit
M-2 bears an endorsement ―Left‖. Subsequently, a Notice of enquiry dated 22.11.2001 was sent at the same address
under registered post with A/D. The copy of the postal envelope has been produced as Exhibit M-6/1. From the face of
the document it appears that the addressee had left the place and the same has returned unserved. Thereafter, a Notice of
enquiry dated 28.01.2002 was issued to the workman under registered post with A/D but the same returned unserved.
Copy of the postal envelope has been produced as Exhibit M-5/1. Lastly, a Notice of enquiry dated 20/21.02.2002
(Exhibit M-3) was sent to the charged workman under registered post with A/D at his home address. Copy of the postal
envelope is marked as Exhibit M-4 and the same was retuned unserved with an endorsement ―Left‖. The management
made several attempts to serve Notices of enquiry upon the absenting workman but failed to succeed. The enquiry was
held after extending several opportunities to the workman who had knowledge of the Charge Sheet. The Enquiry Officer
held the enquiry ex-parte and noted that after the workman started absenting himself i.e., from 19.07.2001, Charge Sheet
and three Notices of enquiry were issued to the charged employee out of which two Notices of enquiry were returned
with postal remark ―Addressee left all days absent‖. The Enquiry Officer noted that in seven months of his absence the
workman did not send a single letter communicating the management of his absence. After providing opportunity to the
workman, he did not participate in the enquiry on his own accord. The Enquiry Officer held a proper enquiry and found
him guilty of the charge. A second Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2002 / 02.04.2002 was issued to Radha Nayak
(Exhibit M-9). The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the General Manager, Kunustoria Area by his letter dated 14/17.05.2002
thereafter dismissed the workman from service. In my view the domestic enquiry though held ex-parte, the Enquiry
Officer made best efforts to serve Notice of enquiry upon the workman. It appears from the Enquiry Proceeding that the
workman did not make himself available in seven months, thereafter the enquiry was taken up ex-parte. The workman
has a reciprocal responsibility to attend his duty and place of work but in the present case the workman was unperturbed
about his long absence. A person cannot seek equity without him exhibiting equity. Therefore, the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and dismissal of the workman by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be faulted only due to the fact the
workman did not participate in the enquiry proceeding. The workman and the union have miserably failed to establish
the cause for long absence of the workman. No document relating to medical treatment of the workman has been
produced. A single document issued by a Registered Medical Practitioner, who himself has not been examined in this
case, does not evoke any confidence in the workman‘s case. Under the facts and circumstances, I hold that the Industrial
Dispute raised by the union has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The dependents of the deceased
workman are not entitled to any relief for his dismissal from service.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings.
Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to pay the legal dues of the workman to his dependents / Legal
Heirs for the past service within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award. Let copies of the Award
in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1653.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (
89/2000) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
22012/90/2000-vkbZ-vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025
S.O. 1653.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s. ECL and their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/90/2000 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
6132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 89 OF 2000
PARTIES: Babulal Kewat
(represented by the legal heirs)
Vs.
Management of Madhujore Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
30.06.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/90/2000-IR(CM-II) dated 12/15.09.2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of Madhujore Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Madhujore Colliery of M/s. ECL, in dismissing Sh. Babulal Kewat,
Stowing Mazdoor, from services is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/90/2000-IR(CM-II) dated 12/15.09.2000 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 27.09.2000/
31.10.2001 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the then General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on
11.12.2001 on behalf of Babulal Kewat, the dismissed workman. Management filed their written statement on
07.11.2017. Fact of the case disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Babulal Kewat was employed as
Stowing Mazdoor at Madhujore Colliery under Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as
ECL). He was dismissed from his service on the allegation of unauthorized absence from 23.11.1995 to 08.05.1996. A
domestic enquiry was started against the workman and he was dismissed from service on 20.10.1996 for his absence for
less than one year. According to the union the workman was suffering from illness which was beyond his control. It is
contended that the punishment awarded against the workman is disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. In the
instant case without issuing a second Show Cause Notice the workman was dismissed from service, in violation of the
decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Circular issued by Coal India Limited. According to the
union, workman and his family members are facing starvation as no other family member of the workman is employed.
The union prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal and prayed for reinstatement of the workman.
3.
Management of ECL contested the Industrial Dispute by filing a written statement. The specific case of the
employer company is that Babulal Kewat is a habitual absentee. He remained absent from 23.11.1995 without any
intimation or sanctioned leave. A Charge Sheet was issued bearing No. MJ/Mgr/95/311 dated 08.05.1996 under Clause
17(i)(n) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the Coal Mining Industry. Reply submitted by the workman against
the Charge was found unsatisfactory due to which a domestic enquiry was initiated to examine the charge. The domestic
enquiry was held following the principles of natural justice. The workman participated in the enquiry. According to the
management the company has qualified doctors in the Colliery Hospitals in the Area Level as well as two Central
Hospitals at Kalla and Sanctoria, where medical facilities are provided at company‘s cost. It is contended that the
employee claiming to be sick did not avail any medical facility of the company and his plea of illness does not appear to
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6133
be convincing. It is asserted that the workman has taken the plea of illness only to coverup his misconduct of long
absence. He failed to submit any document related to his medical treatment at the time of enquiry. Further contention of
the management is that the workman was a habitual absentee and during the past three years attended duty for only 132
days in the year 1993, 240 days in the year 1994, and 164 days in the year 1995. Therefore, the workman did not perform
continuous service during the year 1993 and 1995, as he worked less than 190 days in a calendar year. The management
asserted in the written statement that the employee did not take his duty seriously and the workman cannot be allowed to
work according to his whims and fancies. The management asserted that no leniency can be shown to a delinquent
workman, as it would send a wrong signal to the other employees of the company. It is urged that the Industrial Dispute
is liable to be dismissed.
4.
On 18.04.2017 Droupati Kewat, wife of Babulal Kewat filed an application through the union, informing this
Tribunal that her husband Babulal Kewat died on 01.01.2016, leaving behind her as a widow, two sons and two
daughters. On her prayer for substitution an order was passed on 18.04.2017 substituting the legal heirs in place of the
deceased workman.
5.
Droupati Kewat filed an affidavit-in-chief but did not appear for her evidence. After granting several
opportunities to Droupati Kewat to appear as a witness, union failed to produce the dependent of the dismissed workman
for her evidence. On 02.12.2022 evidence of Droupati Kewat was closed.
6.
Mr. Proloy Dasgupta, Manager (Personnel), Madhujore Colliery was examined as Management Witness No. 1.
Management of ECL filed the following documents in support of their case :
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 08.05.1996 has been filed as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Reply to the Charge Sheet dated 11.09.1996, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Enquiry Report and Findings of the Enquiry Officer, as Exhibit M-3 (collectively in two
pages).
(iv)
Copy of the Letter of dismissal dated 28.10.1996, as Exhibit M-4.
7.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative cross-examined the witness. It transpires from his cross-examination
that in the Charge Sheet it has not been stated that Babulal Kewat was a habitual absentee but Clause 17(i)(n) of the
Model Standing Orders mentioned in the Charge Sheet speaks about habitual absence. Witness admitted that in reply to
the Charge Sheet, workman stated that he was under medical treatment at Khandra Hospital and informed the
management about his illness through registered post. In course of his cross-examination the management witness
deposed that the workman did not communicate the management about his illness by any registered letter, as claimed by
him. Witness also deposed that in the Enquiry Report it has been mentioned that the workman was absent from duty for
eight (8) months and twenty-six (26) days, from 23.11.1995 to 03.09.1996 and there is no evidence that workman was
previously chargesheeted for his absence. The management witness deposed that the General Manager of Area did not
accept the recommendation in the Note sheet and the decision of dismissing the workman was exclusively his own. The
witness failed to produce any Second Show Cause Notice and denied the suggestion that the order of dismissal, passed
against the workman was harsh and disproportionate.
8.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative arguing the case on behalf of the dismissed workman submitted that
Babulal Kewat was unable to attend his duty due to illness which was beyond his control and had communicated the
reason of his absence to the management of Madhujore Colliery. The management did not consider the ground of his
absence and dismissed him from service in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that no second Show
Cause Notice was issued to the workman before his dismissal. It is urged that the order of dismissal suffers from
illegality, as it is contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, which requires that before
awarding the punishment of dismissal from service, the concerned workman should be given an opportunity to respond
to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, against him. It is urged that the order of dismissal is bad in law and the same is
liable to be set aside. The union representative submitted that since the workman died during the pendency of the
Industrial Dispute before this Tribunal, the legal heirs of the deceased workman are entitled to the back wages of Babulal
Kewat from the date of his dismissal i.e., 28.10.1996 till his death (i.e., 01.01.2016) or till superannuation, whichever is
earlier.
9.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate argued that in the instant case the union has not examined any witness. Since
raising of this Industrial Dispute neither Babulal Kewat nor any of his legal heirs have turned up denying the charge
levelled against the workman regarding his unauthorized absence for more than ten days and his habitual absence. In the
written statement there is no denial that the workman participated in the enquiry. According to the learned advocate for
the management reasonable opportunity was granted to the workman to produce treatment papers and medical
documents in support of his claim of remaining absent from duty on medical ground. It is asserted that the workman
participated in the enquiry proceeding but failed to established that he had remained absent due to illness. It is argued
that the Competent Authority after considering the Charge Sheet and enquiry proceeding, thought it appropriate to
impose a punishment of dismissal of the workman from employment who hampered the work of the employer company.
It is argued that there is no merit in the Industrial Dispute and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
I have considered the rival contentions of the union and management of ECL. Admittedly, Babulal Kewat was
an employee of ECL at Madhujore Colliery and he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 23.11.1995 till 08.05.1996. Charge
Sheet was issued to the workman which has been exhibited in the evidence as Exhibit M-1. The workman submitted his
reply dated 11.09.1996 i.e., 4 months after issuance of Charge Sheet and he took a plea that he was absent without
information as he was suffering from Tuberculosis and was under the treatment of B.M.O.II. / M.O.C.H.S., Khandra. In
course of enquiry the charged employee replied that he had no papers to produce in support of his illness. The Enquiry
Report and findings of the Enquiry Officer have been marked as Exhibit M-3 (collectively). I find from the Enquiry
Report that the charge against the workman was proved. The Disciplinary Authority issued the order of dismissal after
considering the Charge Sheet as well as the enquiry proceeding. After careful consideration of the materials on record, I
find that the union has failed to prove that during long unauthorized absence from duty Babulal Kewat was suffering
from any kind of illness, which prevented him from attending duty. Therefore, I find no illegality in the findings of the
Enquiry Officer. Despite the fact that no second Show Cause Notice was issue it appears that the charged workman had
opportunity to represent his case. In order to set aside the order of dismissal the union or the dismissed workman or the
dependents of the dismissed workman are duty bound to establish that there was some cogent reason for the workman for
remaining away from his place of work or duty for nearly one year. It is only after such prima facie case is established, it
would be the bounden duty of the management to issue a second Show Cause Notice to the workman before dismissing
him from service. Since the workman and his dependent family members did not come forward to participate in this
Industrial Dispute proceeding there is no reason to presume that they have been prejudiced by the order of dismissal. It is
true that a second Show Cause Notice should have been issued to the workman before dismissing him. Non-compliance
of such mandate is a procedural lapse and not a violation of substantive provision.
11.
In the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others Vs. S. K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364] it was held that :
“ (1)
An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary /
departmental enquiry in violation of the rules / regulations / statutory provisions governing such enquiries should
not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is of a
substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character.
(2)
A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of
substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case.
(3)
In the case of violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are
generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer / employee. They
are, generally speaking, conceived in his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said
to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under 'no notice', 'no opportunity'
and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point
of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer / employee in defending
himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made
to repair and remedy the prejudicate, including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no
prejudice
is
established
to
have
resulted
therefrom,
it
is
obvious,
no
interference
is
called for.”
In the present case if order of dismissal of the workman is found unsustainable for non-issuance of second Show Cause
Notice, there is no further scope for doing so as the workman has died during pendency of the Industrial Dispute and the
charge against him has been proved by holding a fair enquiry into which he had participated. Under such facts and
circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the Order of Dismissal passed against Babulal Kewat. Therefore, the
order of dismissal passed by the management does not appears to be disproportionate to the nature of misconduct proved.
The Industrial Dispute is therefore dismissed on contest. Management of the Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to
disburse all dues to the legal heirs on account of past service of the workman.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. The dependents of the workman are not entitled to any relief.
Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1654.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (
40/2018) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/121/2018- vkbZ vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6135
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025
S.O. 1654.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025
[No. L-22012/121/2018- IR(CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 40 OF 2018
PARTIES: Suresh Shaw
Vs.
Management of Tilaboni Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
27.06.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/121/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 22.11.2018 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of Tilaboni Colliery under Bankola Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of management of Tilaboni Colliery of Bankola Colliery, M/s. E.C.Ltd in termination of
service of superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years in respect of Sri Suresh Shaw, Fitter and non-
payment of wages for the period from 06-05-2010 of 14-09-2011 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/121/2018-IR(CM-II) dated 22.11.2018 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 10.12.2018 and an
order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Suresh Shaw, the aggrieved workman filed written statement on 08.02.2023 through Mr. Rakesh Kumar,
President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress. Management filed written statement on the same date. The fact of the case, in
brief as disclosed in the written statement of the union is that Suresh Shaw was posted as a Fitter at Tilaboni Colliery
under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL). In the Service Record Excerpt,
issued to the workman in the year 1987 his date of birth was mentioned as 06.09.1956. Suresh Shaw did not raise any
objection against his date of birth recorded in the Service Record Excerpt. As per date of birth his date of superannuation
was due on 30.09.2016. On 14.09.2011 management issued a letter bearing No. TC/Ag/PD/ Retire/11-12/337, informing
that his service was terminated with immediate effect on 14.09.2011. According to the guidelines of the company Notice
of superannuation is required to be issued to the workman six months prior to his superannuation but in the instant case
management did not issue any Notice of superannuation to Suresh Shaw within the time prescribed by the company.
Management mentioned that the date of superannuation of Suresh Shaw is 06.09.2010 and terminated him from service
on 14.09.2011. The grievance of the workman is that though he worked up to 14.09.2011, wages were not paid to him
from 06.09.2010 to 14.09.2011. It is contended that the workman is entitled to get wages from 06.09.2010 to 14.09.2011
for twelve months and three days with all other consequential benefits. The workman as well as union raised a dispute
before the management for correction of date of birth in the Service Record and that the workman should be allowed to
continue his service till 30.09.2016 and payment of wages to the workman for the period he rendered service.
6136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Initially, the proposal was sent to the Area Office and in turn it was sent to the Headquarters of ECL but
management did not approve. An Industrial Dispute was thereafter raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(Central). The dispute ended in a failure and the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, referred the
dispute before this Tribunal for adjudication. It is the case of the workman that he was allowed to continue his work
till his termination on 14.09.2011, as such he is entitled to get his wages for the period, he rendered service from
06.09.2010 to 14.09.2011. According to the workman his date of birth has been recorded as 06.09.1956 in the Service
Record Excerpt and according to such date of birth his date of superannuation is 30.09.2016 but the management of the
company retired him in a premature manner on 14.09.2011. The union therefore has prayed for allowing him to continue
his duty up to 30.09.2016 and for payment of wages for the period. Union has prayed for payment of wages to Suresh
Shaw, Fitter, Tilaboni Colliery for the work done by him for the period from 06.09.2010 to 14.09.2011, with all
consequential benefits on the basis of his date of birth, 06.09.1956.
4.
Management contested the Industrial Dispute and stated in their written statement that Suresh Shaw was
transferred from Ningha Colliery under Sripur Area to Tilaboni Colliery under Bankola Area. As per Form ‗B‘ Register
of Tilaboni Colliery date of birth of Suresh Shaw was recorded as 06.09.1956 and according to such date of birth his
superannuation is 30.09.2016. Further, case of ECL is that subsequently, it was found that the date of birth of Suresh
Shaw was recorded as 06.09.1950 in the Service Record Excerpt and accordingly the workman was required to
superannuate on 30.09.2010. During verification of date of birth by the system department, it was found that the date of
birth was 06.09.1950. However, the workman continued his work beyond his date of superannuation i.e., from October,
2010 to September, 2011. The order of termination was issued w.e.f. 14.09.2011 as advised by the Senior Manager
(Personnel) / IC, Bankola Area. Further case of the management is that a Note sheet was initiated for payment of wages
to Suresh Shaw vide Ref. No. TC/Ag/PD/NS/11-12/370 dated 23.09.2011. The total wages payable to the workman in
Rs. 3,94,049.35/- (Rupees three lakh ninety-four thousand forty-nine and thirty-five paisa only), an advance payment
was made to him to the extent of Rs. 1,97,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety-seven thousand only) and an amount of Rs.
1,97,049.35/- (Rupees one lakh ninety-seven thousand forty-nine and thirty-five paisa only) is yet to be paid.
Management claimed that petition filed by the union is vexatious and baseless and the same is liable to be rejected.
5.
Suresh Shaw was examined as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief and produced the
following documents :
(i)
Copy of the Service Record Excerpt dated 30.03.1987 is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of the letter of termination date 14.09.2011, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Form PS-3, as Exhibit W-3.
In his evidence-in-chief the workman deposed that his date of birth is 06.09.1956 and the employer company
superannuated him on 14.09.2011 in a premature manner, while six years of service was remaining. The workman stated
that he was informed that he attained the age of sixty years on 06.09.2010 but he rendered service till 14.09.2011. The
workman claimed that the company did not make payment of wages for the service rendered by him and that the
management paid part of his wages for nine months.
6.
In course of cross-examination the witness deposed that at the time of his appointment in the year 1973 he
appeared before an Interview Board where he was asked about his date of birth and on their own assessment, they
recorded 06.09.1956 as his date of birth. Workman deposed that he was 17 years and 10 months old at the time of his
appointment in the year 1973. Witness stated that he has no document in support of his age and his date of birth was
recorded as 06.09.1956 on their own guess. The workman did not submit any application before the company for
claiming unpaid wages, but raised a complaint before the union.
7.
Management of Tilaboni Colliery examined Mr. Sunil Kumar, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Tilaboni
Colliery as Management Witness No. 1. An affidavit-in-chief has been filed wherein the witness stated that the date of
birth of Suresh Shaw was recorded in his Service Record Excerpt as 06.09.1950 and according to the date of birth, his
date of superannuation would be 30.09.2010. The management of ECL permitted the workman to continue his work
beyond the date of superannuation from October, 2010 to September, 2011. The letter of termination was issued on
14.09.2011. Thereafter a Note sheet was initiated for payment of wages to Suresh Shaw vide Ref. No. TC/Ag/PD/NS/11-
12/370 dated 23.09.2011. It further transpires from his affidavit-in-chief that total wages due to the workman was
Rs.3,94,049.35/- and out of the said amount Rs.1,97,000.00/- has been paid to the workman and an amount of
Rs.1,97,049.35/- is due. In course of his evidence the management witness filed the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the Service Register is filed as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Service Record Excerpt of ss, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Letter of termination dated 14.09.2011, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of the Letter dated 13.09.2011 issued by Sr. Manager (P)/IC, Bankola Area to the Agent,
Tilaboni Colliery, as Exhibit M-4.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6137
8.
In his cross-examination the witness admitted that the payment of balance amount of Rs.1,97,049.35/- has not
been made to the workman for want of approval by the Competent Authority. It is gathered from his evidence that the
management permitted the workman to continue his work as relevant documents relating to his date of birth and
superannuation were not available at that time. The witness also stated that the workman is entitled to receive wages for
the extra period of service rendered by him.
9.
In the present case Service Record Excerpt of the workman reveals that his date of birth is 06.05.1956 (Exhibit
W-1). Management produced Service Register of the workman as Exhibit M-1. The date of birth of the workman in the
Service Register is recorded as 06.09.1950, therefore his date of superannuation is 30.09.2010. The evidence of
management witness reveals that the workman was permitted to continue his service after 30.09.2010 as documents
regarding his date of birth was not available at that time. It appears from relevant material on record that the workman
had served for an extra period after attaining the age of superannuation. From the cross-examination of Witness
Workman No. 1, it appears to me that there was no basis of recording is date of birth as 06.09.1956 in the Service Record
as it was recorded on the basis of presumptions made by the members in the interview board at the time of appointment.
10.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that at this stage the only question which needs to be
addressed is whether the workman is entitled to the payment of remaining portion of the wages for the service rendered
by him.
11.
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate, fairly argued that the management witness has already provided
the answer to the question by deposing that the payment of Rs. 1,97,000/- could not be made to the workman for the
want of approval from the Competent Authority.
12.
Considered the argument advanced on behalf of the management and union in the backdrop of the pleadings of
the parties and evidence adduced. Undisputedly, Suresh Shaw has worked for an extra period of one year after attaining
his age of superannuation as per his Service Record. He has received Rs. 1,97,000/- out of total due of Rs. 3,94,049.35/-
towards wages for the period of one year. Therefore, the superannuated workman is entitled to Rs.1,97,049.35/- from the
management of Tilaboni Colliery under Bankola Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited. The Industrial Dispute is
accordingly decided against the management.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Tilaboni Colliery under Bankola
Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited. Management is directed to pay Rs. 1,97,049.35/- (Rupees one lakh ninety-seven
thousand forty-nine and thirty-five paisa only) to Suresh Shaw within a period of one (1) month from the date of
communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1655.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (
29/2012) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/88/2012- vkbZ vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025
S.O. 1655.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/88/2012- IR(CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
6138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REFERENCE CASE NO. 29 OF 2012
PARTIES: Somesh Das
(dependent son of Late Jogi Das)
Vs.
Management of J. K. Ropeways, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
None.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
30.06.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/88/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 25.07.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of J. K. Ropeways and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of J.K. Ropeways is fair, just and based in the justice to not providing
employment to Sri Somesh Das, dependent son of Late Jogi Das who died in service leaving family in harness?
To what relief management can provide to Sri Somesh Das? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/88/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 25.07.2012 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 13.08.2012 and an
order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Mr. C. B. Mishra, General Secretary, United Koila Mazdoor Sangh (UTUC) field written statement on behalf of
the dependent son of the deceased employee on 26.06.2013. Fact of the case in brief as per written statement of union is
that Jogi Das was employed a J. K. Ropeways under Eastern Coalfields Limited. He died in harness 16.11.1986 due to a
fatal accident at his place of work leaving behind Suren Kamin his wife and Somesh Das, son. Somesh Das, submitted an
application for his employment in the year 1996. Since the son of the deceased workman was only eleven years of age at
the time of death of his father his claim for employment was not processed and the wife of the deceased was verbally
communicated that her son will be provided with employment on attaining majority. Subsequently, management
regretted the claim for employment of the dependent son by issuing letter No. ECL/JKR/Employment/675 dated
19/23.07.1996, on the ground that he was a minor at the time of death of his father. Union contended that the denial of
employment on the ground of age is not justified and he was more than eighteen years on 19.07.1996. Therefore, the
candidate was eligible for employment on compassionate ground. The union prayed issuing necessary direction to the
management for providing employment to the dependent son.
3.
Management contested the case by filing written statement on 04.06.2015. It is their specific case that
provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA) is binding upon both the parties and
under Clause 9.4.1 and 9.4.2 of NCWA-III and the Mines Act there was no scope for providing employment to the
dependent below the age of eighteen years. It is claimed that on the date of death of Jogi Das, the age of Somesh Das was
9 years, 10 months and 15 days. According to the provisions for maintaining the name of the male dependent in the Live
Roster, a male dependent had to be above the age of 15 years and it was introduced for the first time in NCWA-V which
was in force from 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1996. It is asserted by the management of ECL that denial of employment to the
minor son of deceased is consistent with the provisions of the bipartite agreement and the management did not commit
any illegality.
4.
In support of the dependent‘s claim for employment Somesh Das has been examined as Workman Witness No.
1. He has filed his affidavit-in-chief where he claimed that he is entitled to get employment on account of his father‘s
death but admitted that his age at the time of accident was ten years.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6139
5.
In cross-examination witness deposed that his mother was alive at the time of accident of his father and his
mother applied before the employer company for his employment. Witness was unable to state on which date the
application was made. He deposed that after attaining the age of majority his mother again applied for his employment
but the company did not consider his case as he was a minor at the time of his father‘s death.
6.
Management examined Mr. Navnit Raj Verma, Senior Officer (Personnel), Kajora Area, as Management
Witness No. 1. He filed an affidavit-in-chief and deposed that for providing employment to the dependent of ex-
employee, in case of death either in mines accident or for other reason or medical unfitness of the employee of Coal
India Limited and its subsidiary companies they are governed by the terms of National Coal Wage Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as NCWA). It is further averred in the affidavit-in-chief that on the date of death of Jogi Das on
16.11.1986, the age of Somesh Das, claiming employment was 9 years, 10 months and 15 days. He further stated that
under the rules and relevant provisions of NCWA-III under Clause 9.4.1 read with 9.4.2 there was no scope to provide
employment to the eligible dependent below the age of eighteen years. In course of evidence management witness
produced the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the application for employment submitted by Somesh Das is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Form ‗B‘ of Jogi Das, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of letter dated 19/23.07.1996 issued by the Dy.CME, J.K. Ropeways to the wife of the deceased
employee, regretting the employment proposal of her son, as Exhibit M-3.
7.
When the case was taken up for argument none is appeared for the workman. On a perusal of the record, I find
that at the time the case was fixed up for peremptory hearing the union representative did not turn up to cross-examine
the management witness and the witness was discharged.
8.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for ECL argued that only question for considering in this case is whether
Somesh Das fulfilled the conditions under NCWA for providing employment to him. It is argued that there was no
provision under NCWA-III to maintain the name of the minor in the Live Roster or to provide employment on attaining
majority. It is submitted that the provision of maintaining the name of dependent was introduced in NCWA-V, which
came into effect from 01.07.1991, is after the death of Jogi Das.
9.
Considered the argument advanced in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence on
record. Undisputedly, Somesh Das, is the dependent son of the workman Jogi Das, was a minor at the time of his father‘s
death on 16.11.1986. At the relevant time there was no provision in NCWA for maintaining the name of minor son in the
Live Roster, so that employment could be provided to him on his attaining majority. As per written statement of the
union, application claiming employment was submitted by the wife of the deceased employee in the year 1996, which is
ten years after the date of death of the employee. Apart from the fact that the dependent son was a minor at the time of
his father‘s death and there was no provision for maintaining his name in the Live Roster for providing employment,
there was delay on the part of the dependents of the deceased workman in submitting their application for employment. it
also appears that the family of the deceased has been able to wade over their financial crisis since 1986. Considering
such facts, I hold that Somesh Das, the son of the deceased employee is not entitled to compassionate employment on the
death of his father. The Industrial Dispute is without merit and the same is dismissed.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Somesh Das, the dependent son of the deceased employee,
Jogi Das is not entitled to any employment on compassionate ground. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above
findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India,
New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1656.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (
34/2007) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/3/2007- vkbZ vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025
S.O. 1656.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/3/2007- IR(CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 34 OF 2007
PARTIES: Sant Kumar Harijan
Vs.
Management of Jhanjra 1 and 2 Incline, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
26.06.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/3/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 25.06.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that
is the Management of Jhanjra 1 and 2 Incline under Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for
adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing the service of Sri Sant
Kumar Harijan w.e.f. 10.05.2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/3/2007-IR(CM-II) dated 25.06.2007 from the Government of India, Ministry
of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 03.07.2007 / 11.07.2007 and an
order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written statement on 06.05.2015 on behalf of Sant Kumar Harijan, the
dismissed workman. Fact of the case, in brief, is that Sant Kumar Harijan is a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields
Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) and was posted as a Fitter at 1 and 2 Incline Jhanjra under Jhanjra Area of
ECL, bearing U. M. No. 101407. Due to unauthorized absence of the workman from duty for more than ten days,
management issued a Charge Sheet to him. The workman explained the circumstances under which he was unable to
attend his duty. it is his case that he was serving as an Underground Loader since 1987 and his work was very risky and
hazardous due to which he was unable to adjust himself and frequently fell ill and could not attend his duty. He requested
the management to allow him to join his job but he was not allowed and a Charge Sheet was issued to him and after
enquiry management awarded the punishment of dismissal. According to the union a Memorandum of Settlement dated
22.05.2007 was signed whereby management agreed to reconsider the cases of dismissal where the period of absence
was up to nine months and age of the workman was within 45 years. It is contended that the workman only absented for
a period of one month and five days only but the punishment of dismissal awarded against him is harsh and
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. Union contended that dismissal of Sant Kumar Harijan is illegal and he
should be allowed to join his duty with other consequential benefits.
3.
Management filed their written statement in this case on 29.01.2025. According to the management the
workman absented from duty without information and permission w.e.f. 30.08.2001 for which a Charge Sheet bearing
No. AGT/JNR/1&2/P/CS/2001/604 dated 04.10.2001 was issued under Clause 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6141
applicable to the company. Further case of the management is that the concerned workman did not submit any reply to
the Charge Sheet, as such a domestic enquiry was held into the charge. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who issued
four Notice of enquiry addressed at his home. The workman failed to appear in the enquiry and the same was held ex-
parte. The Enquiry Officer after concluding the enquiry proceeding submitted his report, holding Sant Kumar Harijan
guilty of the charge mentioned in the Charge Sheet. A second Show Cause Notice bearing No.
GM/JNR/PER/08/2002/115 dated 18/23.04.2002 was issued to the workman, seeking reply within three days. The
workman did not respond to the second Show Cause Notice and finally he was dismissed from service vide Order No.
GM/JNR/PER/08/2002/249 dated 07/10.05.2002 issue by the General Manager. Management claimed that the order of
dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, against the charged workman is proportionate and consistence to the
gravity of the misconduct. It is the case of the management that the principles of natural justice were followed at all
stages and reasonable opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case. The enquiry proceeding was fair and the
management is justified in dismissing the workman from his service.
4.
In order to substantiate his case union examined Sant Kumar Harijan as Workman Witness No. 1 who filed his
affidavit-in-chief where he disclosed that he could not attend his duty from 30.08.2001. After recovery from illness, he
reported for duty but management disallowed him. The management issued Charge Sheet but the Charge Sheet was not
served upon him by the colliery management. Workman witness further stated in his affidavit-in-chief that management
issued Charge Sheet to him on 04.10.2001 but he did not receive the same. The enquiry was held ex-parte and no Notice
of enquiry was served upon him. The witness denied receipt of second Show Cause Notice issued to him. It is asserted
that he was absent from duty for one month and five days i.e., 30.08.2001 to 04.10.2001 and after his absence for such
short period highest punishment of dismissal should not be awarded. The workman claimed that he should be allowed to
join duty with full back wages because his dismissal from service is illegal and not justified.
5.
In cross-examination the witness deposed that he was absent from duty due to illness but he was unbale to file
any document in support of his illness, claiming that the same were already submitted before the management. The
witness further deposed that he intimated the management about his illness but he did not have any proof in support of
the same. It transpires from his evidence that he did not receive Charge Sheet or Notice of enquiry from the management.
It is denied that the management served Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry upon him.
6.
Mr. Abhijeet Chakraborty, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Jhanjra Project Colliery has been examined as
Management Witness No. 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief wherein it is stated that Sant Kumar Harijan was
chargesheeted by the management vide letter No. 604 dated 04.10.2001. In course of his evidence the management
witness filed the following documents :
(i)
Copy of Charge Sheet dated 06.06.2001 is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Reply to the Charge Sheet dated 17.07.2001, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the letter dated 18.07.2001 by which he was allowed to resume his duty w.e.f. 18.07.2001, as
Exhibit M-3
(iv)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 02.08.2001, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding in two pages, as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of the Enquiry Report prepared by the Enquiry Officer, Mr. D. Das by filling up the blanks in the
printed Form, as Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 04.10.2001, as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 22.10.2001, 13.11.2001, 10.12.2001 and 03.01.2002 have been
produced collectively as Exhibit M-8 series.
(ix)
Copy of Enquiry Proceeding, as Exhibit M-9.
(x)
Copy of Enquiry Report, as Exhibit M-10.
(xi)
Copy of the second Show Cause Notice dated 18/23.04.2002, as Exhibit M-11.
(xii)
The postal envelope along with A/D for communicating the second
Show Cause Notice is produced as Exhibit M-12.
(xiii)
Copy of letter of dismissal dated 07/10.05.2002, as Exhibit M-13.
(xiv)
The postal envelope along with A/D for communicating the letter of dismissal is produced as Exhibit
M-14.
7.
In cross-examination the witness deposed that the enquiry proceeding commenced on 12.01.2002 and denied
that during enquiry the principles of natural justice was not followed by the Enquiry Officer or that the workman was
held guilty in biased manner. Witness also denied that the punishment of dismissal of the workman is disproportionate to
the nature of misconduct of unauthorized absence.
6142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that the workman was absent for a shorter period and the only
charge levelled against the workman was of unauthorized absence. There is no charge of habitual absence against the
workman. It is further argued that neither Charge Sheet nor Notice of enquiry was served upon the workman but on the
basis of ex-parte enquiry the workman was arbitrarily dismissed form service. It is argued that initially management had
produced a wrong Charge Sheet which has been marked as Exhibit M-1 in the name of Sant Kumar Harijan which is
dated 06.06.2001. Subsequently, Exhibit M-7 has been produced, which is Charge Sheet No. 604 dated 04.10.2001. Mr.
Rakesh Kumar, Union representative argued that the dismissal of the workman without holding a fair enquiry amounts to
violation of principles of natural justice. It is argued that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and the same is
required to be set aside and the workman deserves to be reinstated in service along with back wages.
9.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate argued that the workman remained absent for more than ten days without any
intimation or prior permission of the Competent Authority. Due to such unauthorized absence the workman caused
disruption of work of the employer company. Management made several attempts to serve the Charge Sheet and Notice
of enquiry upon the workman but failed. Enquiry was held providing opportunity to the workman to appear and contest
the charge during enquiry proceeding but he remained absent. The workman in his written statement disclosed that he
could not attend his work due to illness but the workman neither submitted any document relating to his medical
treatment before the management of the company nor did he produce any document in support of his illness at the time
of hearing. Learned advocate argued that the second Show Cause Notice along with a copy of Enquiry Proceeding and
Report were sent at the home address of the concerned workman under registered post with A/D but he had not
responded to the same. The postal envelope with A/D has been produced as Exhibit M-12. Learned advocate urged that
the workman is not entitled to any relief and considering his date of birth, he already attained the age of superannuation
in January, 2018. Therefore, there is no scope for his reinstatement.
10.
On a conspectus of the pleading of parties, evidence adduced by the union and management and on considering
argument advanced on behalf of both the parties, it is crystal clear that the workman voluntarily had fled his place of
work on the pretext of illness. Management made best efforts to serve copy of Charge Sheet disclosing the nature of
misconduct, which the workman was already aware of but there was not attempt on his part to inform the management
about the reason of his absence. His only plea is that no Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry was served upon him for
which he could not participate in the enquiry. As the workman had left his place of work, he was not amenable for
ensuring his participation in the enquiry. Documents filed by the management revealed that Charge Sheet (Exhibit M-7)
and Notice of enquiry dated 22.10.2001, 13.11.2001, 10.12.2001 and 03.1.2002 (Exhibit M-8 series) were issued in the
name of Sant Kumar Harijan. The Enquiry Officer observed that the enquiry proceeding was held on 12.01.2002. Mr.
A. Adhikary and Mr. R. S. Singh were examined as management witnesses. Mr. A. Adhikary stated that Sant Kumar
Harijan absented from duty since 30.08.2001 and produced ‗Form IV A‘ of August, 2001. Mr. R. S. Singh corroborated
the statement of Mr. A. Adhikary regarding absence of Sant Kumar Harijan from 30.08.2001 to 12.01.2002. He produced
‗G & H Register‘ of the Time Rated Employees. The enquiry proceeding has been produced as Exhibit M-9. Enquiry
Report dated 12.01.2002 (Exhibit M-10) reveals that the charge levelled against Sant Kumar Harijan in Charge Sheet
dated 04.10.2001 had been proved beyond doubt. A second Show Cause Notice 18/23.04.2002 has been produced as
Exhibit M-11. Management produced a postal envelop, which was admitted in evidence as Exhibit M-12, which
contained a second Show Cause Notice along with copy of Enquiry Proceeding and Report, transmitted to Sant Kumar
Harijan under registered post with A/D. The postal envelope was returned unserved with postal endorsement. On a
scrutiny of the document, it appears that the management was steadfast in their attempt to communicate the outcome of
proceeding to the absenting workman and finally the workman was dismissed from his service on the strength of order
dated 07/10.05.2002, issued by the General Manager, Jhanjra Area, who is the Disciplinary Authority in this case. The
order of dismissal has been produced as Exhibit M-13. The only plea of the workman is that he did not receive the
Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry, which prevented him from participating in the enquiry proceeding. He has not come
forward with clean hands and remained silent about his absence. In the written statement the workman is absolutely
silent regarding his absence from duty for more than one month. In the affidavit-in-chief, he has stated in paragraph no. 3
that after recovery from illness he reported for duty before the management but was not allowed him to join duty. The
workman did not disclose the nature of illness he experienced nor did he produce any document in support of his
illness. Therefore, I hold that the workman has miserably failed to prove any cogent reason for his absence from duty
without any information to the management. He has raised this Industrial Dispute five years after his dismissal. In view
of the facts and circumstances of this case I find and hold that the dismissal of Sant Kumar Harijan on the ground of his
long absence from duty is just and legal. There is no merit in the Industrial Dispute and he is not entitled to any relief
from the employer. It may be noted that the workman has already crossed the age of superannuation in January, 2018.
The workman did not find out the detrimental consequence for his long absence form duty. Therefore, the ex-parte
Enquiry Proceeding held against him cannot be vitiated only for his non-participation, which appears to be a conscious
act on his part.
Hence,
ORDERED
that Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let
copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information
and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6143
नई ददल्ली, 9 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1657.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj इ सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (
111/2005) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/378/2004- vkbZ vkj
(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2025
S.O. 1657.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 111/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s. ECL and
their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/378/2004- IR(CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 111 OF 2005
PARTIES: Ranjit Tapadar
(represented by the legal heirs)
Vs.
Management of Sonepur Bazari Project, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Ms. Debarati Konar, Advocate.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
25.06.2025
AWARD
In exercise of power conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/378/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 18.08.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of Sonepur Bazari Project, Sonepur Bazari Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Sonepur Bazari Project in dismissing Sh. Ranjit Tapadar from
services w.e.f. 20.6.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and
from which date? ”
6144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/378/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 18.08.2005 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 09.09.2005 and an
order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
In the instant case Mr. S. K. Pandey, the then General Secretary of Koyala Mazdoor Congress filed written
statement on 31.10.2005 on behalf of Ranjit Tapadar, the dismissed workman. The fact of the case, in brief is that Ranjit
Tapadar, bearing Man No. 859400 was a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as
ECL) and was posted as E.P. Helper at Sonepur Bazari Project under Sonepur Bazari Area of ECL. A Charge Sheet
bearing No. ECL/SBP/Pers/HC/2K/1769 dated 04/06.10.2000 was issued to him. It is contended by the union that
Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry were not served upon the workman. Ranjit Tapadar was finally dismissed from
service of the company w.e.f. 20.06.2001 on the strength of order of dismissal issued by the General Manager, Sonepur
Bazari Area vide order No. GM/SBA/Pers/01/9/789 dated 20.06.2001 after holding an ex-parte enquiry. The workman
was aggrieved as he did not get the opportunity to represent his case and the enquiry was held in violation of principles
of natural justice. On such ground the union has prayed for directing the management of ECL to reinstate the workman
and pay him full back wages from the date of his dismissal with all consequential benefits.
3.
Management contested the case by filing their written statement on 01.04.2015. According to the management
the workman was chargesheeted for his unauthorized absence. He failed to submit any satisfactory explanation in the
reply to the Charge Sheet and a Domestic Enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer issued a Notice of enquiry to the
workman and extended reasonable opportunity to defend his case according to the principles of natural justice. After
conclusion of enquiry the workman was found guilty of the charge and the Disciplinary Authority considering all
connected papers and gravity of the misconduct dismissed the workman from service. Management claimed that the
order of dismissal is totally justified and the punishment awarded is proportionate. It is further contended that illegality
has been committed by dismissing the workman. Management urged that the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
4.
On 01.04.2015 it was informed to the Tribunal that Ranjit Tapadar has expired on 13.11.2006, leaving behind
his wife Latika Tapadar and two sons, Somnath Tapadar and Debnath Tapadar, who were substituted in place of the
deceased employee.
5.
Latika Tapadar was examined as Workman Witness No. 1. She filed her affidavit-in-chief wherein she stated
that her husband Ranjit Tapadar was illegally dismissed while in service of the company and she is entitled to the
financial benefits of wages dues, Provident Fund and Pension, Life cover scheme payment, Gratuity and other dues in
respect of her deceased husband. The witness further stated that Somnath Tapadar, their son is entitled to employment in
place of her husband as per provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement.
6.
In course of cross-examination the witness deposed that the management of the company had issued Charge
Sheet against her husband and a domestic enquiry had been initiated. She admitted that she had no knowledge about the
enquiry proceeding. She also stated that her husband died after dismissal from service.
7.
An affidavit has been submitted by the two sons of Ranjit Tapadar, stating that their mother can be substituted
in place of their deceased father. The Affidavit has been marked as Exhibit W-1. Legal Heirship Certificate has been
produced as Exhibit W-2. Copy of Death Certificate of Ranjit Tapadar, as Exhibit W-3. Copy of the Post Mortem Report
of Ranjit Tapadar, as Exhibit W-4. It appears from the Post Mortem Report that the concern person died due to a road
accident on 13.11.2006. Copy of the Service Excerpt Record of the employee has been marked as Exhibit W-5.
Certificate issued by the Deputy Mayor, Durgapur Municipal Corporation, as Exhibit W-6.
8.
Management filed affidavit-in-chief of Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta but the witness was not examined.
Subsequently, Mr. Pancharam, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Sonepur Bazari Project, filed an affidavit-in-chief. He
was examined as Management Witness No. 1. It is stated therein that the workman remained absent without prior
information to the management establishment and was a habitual absentee. He violated provisions of Clause 26.23
and 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders. A Domestic enquiry was held against the workman and he has been found
guilty and was punished by the Disciplinary Authority. The management witness in support of their case has produced
the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the Charge Sheet dated 04/06.10.2000 has been produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of the Notice of enquiry dated 19.12.2000 / 03.01.2001, as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Last and Final Notice of enquiry dated 05.04.2001, as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of the Enquiry Proceeding, as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of the Enquiry Report, as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of the order of dismissal, as Exhibit M-6.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6145
9.
In course of cross-examination management witness is unbale to produce any document to show service of
Charge Sheet and Notice of enquiry upon the workman before initiating the enquiry proceeding. There is no evidence of
service of second Show Cause Notice. It also appears that in the order of dismissal the appropriate authority did not
mention service of any second Show Cause Notice upon the workman along with a copy of enquiry proceeding. It is
admitted that in the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officer did not record service of Charge Sheet and Notice of
enquiry upon the workman.
10.
The dispute referred for adjudication is whether dismissal of Ranjit Tapadar from service w.e.f. 20.06.2001 is
legal and justified and to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to.
11. Ms. Debarati Konar, learned advocate appearing for the dependent of the deceased employee argued that the
enquiry proceeding culminating to the dismissal of the workman is vitiated due to non-service of Charge Sheet and
Notice of enquiry upon the workman. It is asserted that the workman did not have any opportunity to defend his case and
was totally in the dark about the enquiry held. It is further argued that the enquiry proceeding was held in an illegal
manner where the principles of natural justice was not followed. Accordingly, it is argued that the order of dismissal
passed against Ranjit Tapadar is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Learned advocate claimed that back wages
should be paid to Latika Tapadar, the dependent wife of the deceased employee from the date of his dismissal dated
20.06.2001. Learned advocate submitted that Ranjit Tapadar died an unnatural death on 13.11.2006. As such there is no
occasion for reinstatement of the deceased employee and in his place Somnath Tapadar, the elder son may be granted
employment on compassionate ground.
12.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that the workman was chargesheeted for
his habitual absence from duty as well as unauthorized absence beyond ten days. It is submitted that the workman
remained absent from duty from 06.06.2000 to 04.10.2000 without any intimation to the company and a Charge Sheet
was issued against him under Clause 26.29. and 26.23 of the Certified Standing Orders. The workman did not participate
in the enquiry proceeding though Notice of enquiry was issued to him. Subsequently, Notice of enquiry dated 05.04.2001
was sent under registered post at his home address at Nimcha, Dist.-Burdwan but the workman did not participate.
Referring to Exhibit M-4, the enquiry proceeding, held against the workman it is submitted that Notice of enquiry was
sent at the home address of the workman on 10.10.2000, 28.10.2000, 19.12.2000 and 05.04.2001, finally fixing the date
of enquiry on 16.04.2001 but the workman did not turn up. A fair enquiry was conducted to examine the charge framed
against the workman and after recording statement of Mr. G. Trivedi, management representative, it was found that the
workman neither applied for any sick leave nor was he referred to any hospital for treatment. It was found from the
office record that he was a habitual absentee and was previously punished for his past absence from duty from
17.01.1995 to 06.06.1995 and from 29.07.1995 to 07.08.1995 by stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative
effects for his unauthorized absence and his physical attendance was 179 days in the year 1997, 69 days in the year 1998
and only 28 days in the year 1999. The workman was found guilty of both the charges. Referring to Enquiry Report
produced as Exhibit M-5, learned advocate contended that the Notice of enquiry were returned unserved with
endorsement ―Not known and return for sender‖. Subsequently, Notice of enquiry dated 03.01.2001 was sent under the
registered post and the same was returned undelivered with remark ―Addressee out of station, so return to sender‖. The
fourth and final Notice of enquiry dated 05.04.2001 along with a copy of Charge Sheet was sent to the home address of
the workman under registered post but the same was returned undelivered with the remark ―Addressee out of station‖.
Learned advocate argued that the management made best efforts to serve Notice of enquiry and Charge Sheet upon the
workman but he was neither at his place of work nor at his home address due to which several Notice, issued to him were
returned unserved. It is argued that the workman had a reciprocal responsibility to his duty, but he not only remained
absent without information, he did not return to his place of work to participate in the enquiry. It is vehemently argued
that the workman who remained absent for four months from his place of work did not cite any reason for remaining
absent. It is not disclosed as to why the workman was absent for such a long period. He did not produce any document to
show that he was under medical treatment at any point of time. It is argued that though the enquiry proceeding was held
ex-parte, the Enquiry Officer had followed the principles of natural justice before holding him guilty of charge and the
Disciplinary Authority issued order of dismissal on 20.06.2001, which has been produced as Exhibit M-6. Learned
advocate concluding his argument submitted that there was no illegality or breach of the principles of natural justice in
the enquiry proceeding against the workman and full opportunity was granted to him but the workman remained away on
his own accord. Furthermore, the workman having expired, there is no scope for his reinstatement, as such the Industrial
Dispute which is being pursued by the union through the legal heirs has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13.
Having considered the argument advance in the light of pleadings, evidence on record and facts and
circumstances of this case, I find that the written statement filed by the union on behalf of the workman does not disclose
any ground for long unauthorized absence of the workman. The case of the union is that the workman has died on
13.11.2006, leaving behind his wife and two sons. At the time of hearing this case Latika Tapadar, the wife of deceased
workman was examined as Workman Witness No. 1. She has not assigned any reason as to why her husband remained
absent for four months. In her affidavit-in-chief she claimed that Ranjit Tapadar was illegally dismissed by the
management, but in her cross-examination, she admitted that the company after issuance of Charge Sheet and holding
domestic enquiry has dismissed her husband. She contended that she has no knowledge about the enquiry proceeding,
6146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
therefore it would not be correct to say that her husband was illegally dismissed. The management in this case has
produced a copy of the Charge Sheet dated 04/06.10.2000 as Exhibit M-1, copy of the Notice of enquiry dated
19.12.2000 / 03.01.2001, as Exhibit M-2, copy of the Last and Final Notice of enquiry dated 05.04.2001, as Exhibit M-3,
copy of the Enquiry Proceeding, as Exhibit M-4, copy of the Enquiry Report, as Exhibit M-5, and a copy of the order of
dismissal, as Exhibit M-6. It is an axiomatic that an employee has a reciprocal responsibility towards his employer. In the
instant case the union of behalf of workman did not assign any reason for his long absence for four months and harped
upon the fact that the enquiry was held ex-parte. The management made several attempts to serve Charge Sheet and
Notice of enquiry upon the workman but the workman was not found at his residence and the letters / notice issued by
the management were returned unserved. The Enquiry Officer held a domestic enquiry and based his findings on the
evidence adduced by the management representative. The Disciplinary Authority is therefore justified in holding the
charged employee guilty of dereliction of his duty and misconduct. It is a settled principle that equity begets equity. The
workman having accepted the responsibility of serving the employer company cannot enjoy long unauthorized leave in
casual manner. Under such facts and circumstances, I find and hold that the decision of management in dismissing the
workman for his long unauthorized absence as well as habitual absence is just and proper and there is no reason to
interfere with such decision. Since Ranjit Tapadar have expired on 13.11.2006, no purpose would be served by directing
the management to serve a second Show Cause Notice to the workman, seeking his response. The Industrial Dispute is
therefore dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is without merit and the same is dismissed on contest. Management of the company
is directed to pay the legal dues of Late Ranjit Tapadar to his wife, Latika Tapadar within three (3) months from the date
of communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate
be
sent
to
the
Ministry
of
Labour,
Government
of
India,
New
Delhi
for
information
and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1658.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड, महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार कायाडलय, उज्जजन प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों
और श्री श्री ओम प्रकाि श्रीवास्ट्तव,उज्जजन के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/एलसी /आर/05/2015), को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
एल -40012/87/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1658.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/05/2015), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The General Manager Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office of General
Manager Telecom, Ujjain and Shri Om Prakash Shrivastava, Ujjain, Worker.
[No. L-40012/87/2014-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/05/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6147
Shri Om Prakash Shrivastava,
154, Gandhi Nagar,
Agra Road,
Ujjain - 456001
Workman
Vs
The General Manager Telecom,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Office of General Manager Telecom,
Ujjain - 456001
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 20th day of May- 2025)
As per letter dated 30/12/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-
40012/87/2014 (IR(DU)) dt. 30/12/2014. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of promotion of Shri Om Prakash Shrivatava comparing with his junior is in
consistence with the Award passed in his favour in reference No. CGIT/LC(R)/35/1986 dated 27.02.86 of
Hon‟ble CGIT Jabalpur which is enclosed herewith. If so, what relief Shri Om Praskash Shrivastava is
entitled to?”
The undisputed facts connected to the present dispute are mainly that, the Workman Omprakash Shrivastava
was firstly engaged by BSNL as a muster roll employee. He was disengaged in 1983. He raised a dispute against his
disengagement which was registered as R/35/1985.Award was passed in this Case by my Learned Predecessor on
27.02.1986. His termination from 01.10.1983 was held illegal and unjustified, he was also held entitled to reinstated as
casual labour with full back wages and other ancillary benefits from date of his termination which is 01.101983. He was
further held entitled to Rs. 100/- as litigation cost from the department. A writ petition No. MP 1094/1986 was preferred
by the Department which was dismissed and the Award of this Tribunal became final.
According to the Management, he was reinstated from 1910.1987 in compliance of the Award dated
27.02.1986 after dismissal of the Writ Petition by Hon‘ble High Court and was paid back wages Rs. 25,000/- from
01.101983. Since, he had crossed the age regarding eligibility for regular appointment which was between 18 to 25
years, he was not regularized whereas another person Mohanlal who was engaged as Casual Labour after the present
Workman was regularized under a settlement on 13.11.1986 because he fulfilled the age limit criteria.
Later on, as it is the case of the Management, the present Workman was also regularized on 10.12.1989, in
compliance of order of Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, pay grievances and pension, OM No. 49014/1986, which
permitted regularization with respect to maximum age limit in regularization of Casual Labour.
The present Workman has claimed parity with his Junior Mohanlal Sahu and has further claimed consequential
benefits in this respect which has been denied by the Management Department on the pretext that Mohanlal Sahu was
regularized/ regularly appointed before regular appointment of the present Workman.
Both the sides have field their affidavits as their examination-in-chief, documents have been filed by parties
which are mainly Judgments and Awards not disputed.
I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel for the Department Mr. R.S. Kori, none was present for the
Applicant Workman. None of the parties have filed any written argument. I have gone through the record.
The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
It is not disputed that, the Workman Mohanlal Sahu, who was undisputedly engaged as a Casual Labour
after the Applicant Workman, was engaged, was regularized in service in consequence of a settlement between him and
Management Department because he had fulfilled the eligibility criteria with regards to age limit, the Applicant
Workman was reinstated under order of Tribunal, but since he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria with regards to age, he
was not offered regular appointment and it was only he was offered regular appointment in 1988 after the O.M. of 1988
6148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was issued which relaxed the maximum age limit. There is nothing on record to show that, the period a Workman spent
in engagement of the Management as a casual labour will be accounted for granting benefits in promotion etc.. Hence,
naturally, the date of regular appointment shall be the date from which benefits of regular services shall be given. Since,
the Workman Mohanlal was regularly appointed earlier than the Applicant Workman; there can be no parity between the
two only on the ground that, the Applicant Workman, was earlier a Casual Labour senior to Mohanlal.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the demand of promotion of Shri Om Prakash Shrivatava comparing with his junior is in
consistence with the Award passed in his favour in reference No. CGIT/LC(R)/35/1986 dated 27.02.86 of Hon’ble
CGIT Jabalpur is held unjustified and arbitrary, he is held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 20/05/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1659.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
मु्य आयकर आयुि, आयकर कायाडलय, रायृुर (छत्तीसगढ़); प्रबंधक/जनदेिक, मेससड कॉल-मी-सर्ववसेज, रायृुर
(छत्तीसगढ़); प्रबंधक/जनदेिक, बॉम्बे इंटेजलजेंस जसक्योररटी सर्ववसेज, रायृुर (छत्तीसगढ़) प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
महासजचव, ेका मजदूर संघ, जभलाई, दुगड, (छत्तीसगढ़) के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-
श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट (संदभड सं्या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/एलसी /आर/20/2018), को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
एल -42011/31/2018 -आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1659.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/20/2018), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Raipur (Chhattisgarh); The
Manager/Director, M/s. Call-Me-Services, Raipur (Chhattisgarh); The Manager/Director, Bombay Intelligence
Security Services, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and The General Secretary, Theka Mazdoor Sangh, Bhilai, Durg, (CG),
Worker.
[No. L-42011/31/2018-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/20/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
The General Secretary,
Theka Mazdoor Sangh,
BMS, Akash Ganga,
Rain Basera, Supela,
Bhilai, Durg, (CG) - 492002
Workmen
Vs
1. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Income Tax Office, Central Revenue Building,
Civil Line Raipur (Chhattisgarh) – 492001
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6149
2. The Manager/Director,
M/s. Call-Me-Services,
C-101/5, Taigor Nagar,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) – 492001
3. The Manager/Director,
Bombay Intelligence Security Services,
210-A Block, II-Floor, Crystal Arcade,
Pandari, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 492001
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 05thday of AUGUST - 2025)
As per letter dated 10/04/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has
been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No.
L-42011/31/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 10/04/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Income Tax Department, Raipur, Government of India and its
Contractors M/s Call-Me-Service and Bombay Intelligence Security Services in terminating the services of
22 contract labour as per annexure "B" w.e.f. 31/08/2017 who were working as contract labours w.e.f.
01.09.2012 is legal and justified? If not, what relief these contract labour are entitled to?"
Notice were issued to the parties, they appeared and filed their respective statement of defense and claims.
Case of the Workmen Union is mainly that 22 workers as per the list attached with the reference, are members
of the Union. The Union resolved to fight for their cause. They were engaged by the Department directly on the post of
Data Entry Operator/ Computer Operator after an oral interview and were posted in the Department on different dates
mentioned in Para 4 of the Statement of Claim ranging from 1999 to 2015. They were paid wages at rate fixed by the
Collector. They continuously worked till 31.08.2017 and were disengaged by the Department without any notice or
compensation. They had acquired status of permanent employee by working 240 days in every year till the date of their
disengagement. The Department started hiring workers through outsourcing which was sham and a camouflage to avoid
their liabilities under law and to deprive the benefit admissible to the Workmen. The Union raised a dispute with the
concern Labour Commissioner. After failure of conciliation, the reference was sent by the appropriate government to this
Tribunal. According to the Workmen Union the Management has acted unjustly, illegally and arbitrarily by disengaging
the Workmen without any notice or compensation and by not granting them permanent status by taking work of
permanent and perennial nature through discharging and engaging the Workmen on daily basis on the post of permanent
and perennial nature. The Management has adopted unfair labour practice which prohibited in the Act. The Union has
thus prayed that holding the action of Management in discharging the Workmen from 31.08.2017 they be held entitled to
be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
The Department filed Vakaltnama of their Learned Counsel. They raised preliminary objection against the
maintainability of the reference with the case that they are engaged in tax collection hence not an ‗industry‘ as defined
under the Act. They have also stated that, these workmen did not have any right to be regularized or reinstated because
they are not appointed regularly.
The outsourcing agency M/s Bombay Intelligence Security India, filed their statement with the case that,
they were awarded contract for supply of man power to the Department. Since the number of the man power to be
supplied was limited, they discontinued these workmen.
The preliminary objection of the Department has been decided after hearing vide order dated 12.05.2022.
This order is part of this judgment.
At evidence stage, none turned from any of the Management, hence, the reference preceded ex-parte
against the Management that is the Department and Outsourcing Agencies.
In evidence, the Workmen Union has filed affidavits of Workmen Deepak Kumar Sahu, Mithlesh Kumar Sahu,
and Om Prakash Sahu as their examination in chief. There was no cross-examination on behalf of any of the
Management. The Workmen side has also filed documents relating to order of appointment, copies of attendance
register, copies of statements of Bank Accounts of the Workmen. I have heard Mr. Arun Patel Learned Counsel for
Workmen Union. None was present for any of the Management. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in the light of arguments, the reference itself appears to be the issue for
determination.
In the uncontroverted affidavits the Workmen have corroborated their case stated in the statement of claim as
6150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
detailed above. These affidavits further supported by appointment orders, attendance registers and Bank Accounts of the
Workers. Hence, the continuance of the Workmen by the Department is held proved. Management has not filed any
evidence to rebut the evidence, in form of outsourcing agreement etc. The muster rolls filed did not have any reference
that these Workmen are outsourced employees.
Since, it is established that, these Workmen have been disengaged without notice or compensation, this
action of the Department is held in violation of Section 25G and 25F of the „Act‟.
Following provisions of the ‗Act‘ require to be reproduced and are being reproduced as follows -
11A. Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of
discharge or dismissal of workmen.—Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a Workmen
has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the
adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the
order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and
direct reinstatement of the Workmen on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the
Workmen including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case
may require: Provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the
case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter.
2(ra) “unfair labour practice” means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;
THE FIFTH SCHEDULE See section 2(ra) UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES I.—On the part of
employers and trade unions of employers
1. To interfere with, restrain from, or coerce, workmen in the exercise of their right to organise, form, join or
assist a trade union or to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, that is to say:— (a) threatening workmen with discharge or dismissal, if they join a trade union;
(b) threatening a lock-out or closure, if a trade union is organised;
(c) granting wage increase to workmen at crucial periods of trade union organisation, with a view to
undermining the efforts of the trade union organisation.
2. To dominate, interfere with or contribute support, financial or otherwise, to any trade union, that is to say:—
(a) an employer taking an active interest in organising a trade union of his workmen; and
(b) an employer showing partiality or granting favour to one of several trade unions attempting to organise his
workmen or to its members, whether such a trade union is not a recognised trade union. 3. To establish employer
sponsored trade unions of workmen.
4. To encourage or discourage membership in any trade union by discriminating against any Workmen, that is
to say:—
(a) discharging or punishing a Workmen, because he urged other workmen to join or organise a trade union;
(b) discharging or dismissing a Workmen for taking part in any strike (not being as strike which is deemed to
be an illegal strike under this Act);
(c) changing seniority rating of workmen because of trade union activities;
(d) refusing to promote workmen to higher posts on account of their trade union activities;
(e) giving unmerited promotions to certain workmen with a view to creating discord amongst other workmen,
or to undermine the strength of their trade union;
(f) discharging office-bearers or active members of the trade union on account of their trade union activities.
5. To discharge or dismiss workmen—
(a) by way of victimisation;
(b) not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights;
(c) by falsely implicating a Workmen in a criminal case on false evidence or on concocted evidence;
(d) for patently false reasons;
(e) on untrue or trumped up allegation of absence without leave;
(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue haste;
for misconduct of a minor or technical character, without having any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct
or the past record or service of the Workmen, thereby leading to a disproportionate punishment.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6151
6. To abolish the work of a regular nature being done by workmen, and to give such work to contractors as a
measure of breaking a strike.
7. To transfer a Workmen mala fide from one place to another, under the guise of following management policy.
8. To insist upon individual workmen, who are on a legal strike to sign a good conduct bond, as a pre-condition
to allowing them to resume work.
9. To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers regardless of merit.
10. To employ workmen as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the
object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen.
11. To discharge or discriminate against any Workmen for filing charges or testifying against an employer in
any enquiry or proceeding relating to any industrial dispute.
12. To recruit workmen during a strike which is not an illegal strike.
13. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement.
14. To indulge in acts of force or violence.
15. To refuse to bargain collectively, in good faith with the recognised trade unions.
16. Proposing or continuing a lock-out deemed to be illegal under this Act.
25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or Workmen or a trade union, whether registered
under the Trader Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.
25U. Penalty for committing unfair labour practices.—Any person who commits any unfair labour practice
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees or with both.
The second argument of learned counsel for the Workmen is that the outsourcing agreement itself is bad in law
and is sham agreement because it is a prohibited agreement under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970,
he has referred to section 10 of the Act which is being reproduced as follows:-
―10. Prohibition of employment of contract labour.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the appropriate Government may, after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette,
employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment.
(2) Before issuing any notification under sub-section (1) in relation to an establishment, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour that
establishment and other relevant factors, such as-
(a) whether the process, operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade, business,
manufacture or occupation that is carried on in the establishment ;
(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is so of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of
industry, trade, business, manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment;
(c) whether it is done ordinarily through regular workmen in that establishment or an establishment similar
thereto;
(d)
whether
it
is
sufficient
to
employ
considerable
number
of
whole-time
workmen.
Explanation.- If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature, the
decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final.‖
The learned counsel submits that it is established that there is a vacancy of permanent nature with the
DEPARTMENT, hence, contract labour could not be engaged for it, secondly, there is nothing to show that
DEPARTMENT are registered as a principal employer, hence, not authorized to engage contract manpower on
outsourcing basis through outsourcing agency, also that he has been working firstly as contract employee of Department
for two years and thereafter as outsourcing employee through outsourcing agency on the same post for another five
years.
Learned counsel also submits that engaging Badli, Casual or Temporaries employees on permanent post is
unfair labour practice as defined in the Act and is prohibited in the Act, hence, outsourcing agreements are sham
contracts and contractors are sham contractors engaged just to flout law in this respect in fact, outsourcing agreements
itself are sham agreement. Learned counsel also submits that it has to be kept in mind that he has been working at the site
of DEPARTMENT and under direction as well control of Department officers.
6152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
From the evidence on record ,it is established that in case in hand, the Department has adopted unfair labour
practice.
Learned counsel as further referred to following paragraphs of the judgment Sudarshan Rajpoot v/s U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation (2015) II, SCC 317 which are being reproduced as follows:-
“11. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Workmen that the High Court has erred in
placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC
1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , which was distinguished inasmuch as the said case is not applicable to the case on hand for
the reason that the appellant Workmen is a “Workmen” as defined under Section 2(z) of the UPID Act and the
respondent is the statutory corporation which is an undertaking of the State Government and therefore, as it is an
instrumentality of the State Government, it will come within the definition of “industry” as defined under Section 2(k) of
the UPID Act. Therefore, the said provisions of the UPID Act are applicable to the appellant Workmen as he is a
“Workmen” as defined under Section 2(z) of the UPID Act and Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947.
12. Further, it is contended that the High Court has failed to consider the “unfair labour practice” as defined under
Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Sections 25-T and 25-U and Schedule V of the ID Act. Item 10 of Schedule V
of the ID Act prohibits the employer to employ workmen as badlis, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such
for years in the Corporation, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen is
prohibited. It is further contended that the respondent Corporation is liable for penal action under the provisions of
Section 25-U of the ID Act. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the three-Judge Bench decision of
this Court in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare [Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath
Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 500] .
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation sought to justify the
correctness of the finding and reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan
Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] . Alternatively, it is contended that even if the order of
termination is bad in law, the Workmen who is working on the contract basis is not entitled for reinstatement with full
back wages as per the view taken by this Court in several decisions. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation submits that the impugned judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot, Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order
dated 5-3-2008 (All)] and order need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
14. With reference to the abovesaid rival legal contentions the following substantial questions would arise for our
consideration:
14.1. (i) Whether the High Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment [U.P. SRTC v. Sudarshan Rajpoot,
Writ-C No. 21553 of 2005, order dated 5-3-2008 (All)] , order and reversing the award passed by the Labour Court?
14.2. (ii) Whether the order of termination passed against the appellant Workmen amounts to retrenchment as
defined under Section 2(s) of the UPID Act, 1947?
14.3. (iii) Whether non-compliance with the statutory provisions under Sections 6-N and 6-Q of the UPID Act which
are analogous with Sections 25-F and 25-H, respectively, of the ID Act, 1947 renders the order of termination void ab
initio in law?
14.4. (iv) What relief is the appellant Workmen entitled to?
15. To answer the above substantial questions of law it is necessary for this Court to extract the order of termination
passed by the Assistant Regional Manager of the Corporation, which reads thus:
“OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGIONAL MANAGER,
U.P. TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AZAD NAGAR DEPOT
Letter No. ARM/A. Ngr/Bus Accident 0582/2000/3591 dated 29-7-2000
OFFICE ORDER
On 7-6-1999 vehicle bearing No. 8582 which had met with an accident which was being driven on 7-6-1999 by
Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, contractual driver and conductor Shri Kamta Prasad on Deoria to Kanpur route and
accident occurred on the way at 1.30 a.m. in the night at Village Palhari, Barabanki near Police Station Safdarganj
and due to negligent driving of the driver, Department suffered heavy loss.
Hence, in order to meet Departmental loss, forfeiting security of driver Shri Sudarshan Rajpoot, I pass the
order to strike off his name from the contract roll with an immediate effect. His name be struck off from contract
roll.In the aforesaid order of termination it is specially mentioned that the appellant Workmen was appointed as a
driver on contractual basis. It has been further stated that the accident occurred on 7-6-1999 due to the negligent
driving of the appellant Workmen resulting in heavy loss to the Department of the respondent Corporation. In order
to meet the Departmental loss, security amount of driver was forfeited and Assistant Regional Manager had struck
off the name of the appellant Workmen from the contract employees roll with immediate effect.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6153
16. The respondent Corporation has neither produced documentary evidence nor showed before the Labour Court
that the appellant Workmen was appointed on contract basis. The fact that he deposited Rs 2000 towards security
amount with the respondent Corporation indicates that he was working as a driver on a permanent basis. In view of
Schedule V, Item 10 of the ID Act, 1947 the respondent Corporation is prohibited from engaging the appellant Workmen
as a badli, casual or temporary Workmen to work on permanent basis. The fact that he had been continuously working
for more than 3 years and he had rendered more than 240 days of service as the driver in a calendar year until his
termination order and yet he is being engaged on a contractual basis in the respondent Corporation is statutorily
prohibited. The same amounts to an unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) read with Section 25-T, which
action of the Corporation is punishable under Section 25-U of the ID Act. This legal position is settled by this Court
in Chief Conservator of Forests case [Chief Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 500] wherein it was held as under : (SCC pp. 302-03, para 22)
“22. … In our opinion, it would be permissible on facts of a particular case to draw the inference mentioned in
the second part of the item, if badlis, casuals or temporaries are continued as such for years. We further state that
the present was such a case inasmuch as from the materials on record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen who
went to the Industrial Court of Pune (and 15 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for long
years with the primary object of depriving them of the status of permanent employees inasmuch as giving of this
status would have required the employer to pay the workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed under the Minimum
Wages Act. We can think of no other possible object as, it may be remembered, that the Pachgaon Parwati Scheme
was intended to cater to the recreational and educational aspirations also of the populace, which are not ephemeral
objects, but par excellence permanent. We would say the same about environment-pollution-care work of
Ahmednagar, whose need is on the increase because of increase in pollution. Permanency is thus writ large on the
face of both the types of work. If, even in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on casual basis for years the object
manifests itself; no scrutiny is required. We, therefore, answer the second question also against the appellants.”
25. This Court in the later judgment in Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India [Hari Nandan
Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , after adverting to the law laid
down in U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Bijli Mazdoor Sangh [(2007) 5 SCC 755 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 258]
and Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 :
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] wherein Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] is adverted to in both the cases, held that on a harmonious reading of the two judgments, even when there are
posts available, in the absence of any unfair labour practice the Labour Court cannot give direction for regularisation
only because a worker has continued as daily-wage worker/ad hoc/temporary worker for number of years. Further, such
a direction cannot be given when the worker concerned does not meet the eligibility requirement of the post in question
as per the recruitment rules:
25.1. It was held at para 32 in Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014)
7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] as under : (SCC p. 211)
―32. However, the Court in Maharashtra SRTC case [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan
Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] found that the factual position was different
in the case before it. Here the post of cleaners in the establishment was in existence. Further, there was a finding of
fact recorded that the Corporation had indulged in unfair labour practice by engaging these workers on
temporary/casual/daily-wage basis and paying them paltry amount even when they were discharging duties of eight
hours a day and performing the same duties as that of regular employees.‖
25.2. Furthis, Hari Nandan Prasad [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014)
2 SCC (L&S) 408] referred at para 36, LIC v. D.J. Bahadur [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR
1083] in which the relevant para 22 of LIC case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083] is
extracted as under : (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 :
(2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , SCC p. 213)
―36. … ‗22. The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure which seeks to pre-empt industrial tensions,
provide the mechanics of dispute resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the energies of the
partners in production may not be dissipated in counterproductive battles and the assurance of industrial justice may
create a climate of goodwill.‘ (D.J. Bahadur case [(1981) 1 SCC 315 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 111 : (1981) 1 SCR 1083] ,
SCC p. 334, per Krishna Iyer, J.)
In order to achieve the aforesaid objectives, the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals are given wide powers not only
to enforce the rights but even to create new rights, with the underlying objective to achieve social justice. Way back
in the year 1950 i.e. immediately after the enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, in one of its first and celebrated
judgment in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees [1950 SCC 470 : AIR 1950 SC 188 : 1950 LLJ 921 at p. 948] this
aspect was highlighted by the Court observing as under : (AIR p. 209, para 61)
‗61. … In settling the disputes between the employers and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not
confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges on either party
6154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
which it considers reasonable and proper, though they may not be within the terms of any existing agreement. It
has not merely to interpret or give effect to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can create
new rights and obligations between them which it considers essential for keeping industrial peace.‘‖
25.3. And again at para 37, observing that the aforesaid sweeping power conferred upon the Tribunal is not
unbridled and is circumscribed by this Court in New Maneck Chowk Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. Textile Labour Assn. [AIR
1961 SC 867] , the relevant para 6 of which is extracted as under : (Hari Nandan Prasad case [Hari Nandan
Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, (2014) 7 SCC 190 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 408] , SCC p. 213, paras 37-38)
―37. … ‗6. … This, however, does not mean that an Industrial Court can do anything and everything when
dealing with an industrial dispute. This power is conditioned by the subject-matter with which it is dealing and also
by the existing industrial law and it would not be open to it while dealing with a particular matter before it to
overlook the industrial law relating to that matter as laid down by the legislature or by this Court.‘ (Textile Labour
Assn. case [AIR 1961 SC 867] , AIR p. 870)
38. It is, thus, this fine balancing which is required to be achieved while adjudicating a particular dispute,
keeping in mind that the industrial disputes are settled by industrial adjudication on principle of fair play and
justice.‖
26. In view of the aforesaid statement of law laid down by this Court after adverting to the powers of the Industrial
Tribunal and the Labour Court as interpreted by this Court in the earlier decisions referred to supra, the said principle is
aptly applicable to the fact situation of the case on hand, for the reason that the Labour Court recorded a finding of fact in
favour of the Workmen that the termination of services of the appellant herein is not legal and valid and further
reaffirmed the said finding and also clearly held that the plea taken in the order of termination that he was appointed on
contract basis as a driver is not proved by producing cogent evidence. Further, we hold that even if the plea of the
employer is accepted, extracting work though of permanent nature continuously for more than three years, the
alleged employment on contract basis is wholly impermissible. Therefore, we have held that it amounts to an
unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Section 25-T which is
prohibited under Section 25-U, Chapter V-C of the ID Act, 1947. We have to hold that the judgment of the High
Court in reversing the award is not legal and the same is set aside by us.
21. In the order of termination, it is alleged that on account of negligent driving of the bus by the appellant
Workmen the accident of the vehicle happened, the said allegation was neither proved in the inquiry required to be
conducted nor producing evidence before the Labour Court by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the High Court
has failed to examine the above vital aspects of the case on hand and erroneously interfered with the award passed by the
Labour Court in exercise of its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India. This exercise of power is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State
Warehousing Corpn. [(2010) 3 SCC 192 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1146] , wherein this Court held thus : (SCC p. 205, para
21)
―21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind
that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same
are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the
provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A in particular, which
mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality
between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to subserve the common
good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that:
‗10. … the concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives
sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.‘
(State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines [AIR 1958 SC 923] , AIR p. 928, para 10.)‖
24. We are of the opinion that the view taken in Maharashtra SRTC [Maharashtra SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya
Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] at para 36 after
distinguishing Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is the
plausible view. Therefore, we have to hold that the finding of the High Court in setting aside the finding of fact recorded
by the Labour Court in its award by applying Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is wholly untenable in law. Therefore, the same is set aside by this Court.
23. Further, the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court on Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] by the High Court to reverse the finding of fact recorded in the award in
favour of the Workmen in answering the points of dispute in the negative, is not tenable in law in view of the judgment
of
this
Court
in Maharashtra
SRTC v. Casteribe
Rajya
Parivahan
Karmchari
Sanghatana [Maharashtra
SRTC v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, (2009) 8 SCC 556 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] , wherein,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6155
this Court after adverting to Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
753] at para 36, has held that the said case
―does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of
the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on
the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist‖.
(SCC p. 574)
Further, this Court held that : (SCC p. 574, para 36)
―36. … Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] cannot
be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under
Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of
Schedule IV is established.‖
It is a established from evidence that the applicant Workmen was first appointed by Department on contract
basis extended on year to year basis and thereafter, his services were taken by Department as an outsourced employee
supplied by the outsourcing agencies who had employed the Workmen on contract extended on yearly basis.
By not employing a person on permanent regular basis against the permanent vacancy and engaging contract
labours for a work of permanent perennial nature either directly or by outsourcing agencies, the management Department
is held adopting unfair labour practice which is prohibited under the Act.
Reference may be taken of judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo v/s Union of India
reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 3826 , the relevant paragraphs of this judgment are being reproduced as follows:-
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy
has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of
temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning
precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ………
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to
employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:- Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to
the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination:- Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in
the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression:- Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for
skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic
disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:- Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:- Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social
security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.”
The principle laid down in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has been followed by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case
of Shripal Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 8157/2024 (2025 INSC 144). The relevant portion of the
said judgment is being reproduced as follows:-
“12. The evidence, including documentary material and undisputed facts, reveals that the Appellant
Workmen performed duties integral to the Respondent Employer‟s municipal functions specifically the upkeep of
6156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
parks, horticultural tasks, and city beautification efforts. Such work is evidently perennial rather than sporadic or
project-based. Reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long
serving workmen. On the contrary, the acknowledged shortage of Gardeners in the Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam
reinforces the notion that these positions are essential and ongoing, not intermittent. By requiring the same tasks
(planting, pruning, general upkeep) from the Appellant Workmen as from regular Gardeners but still compensating
them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice.
The principle of “equal pay for equal work,” repeatedly emphasized by this Court, cannot be casually disregarded
when workers have served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees. Long-standing
assignments under the Employer‟s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual
engagements.
……………………………………………………….
14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary
employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However,
as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are
“irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi
cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking
legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor based arrangement and a consistent need for
permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite
daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years,
sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer‟s
failure to furnish such records—despite directions to do so—allows an adverse inference under well-established
labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal
requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine
contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite
“temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India
16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer‟s inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably,
this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain
status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed
to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation
evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer‟s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without
adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential,
perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and
compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory
obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of
workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18. The impugned order of
the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without
continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions:-
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen‟s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E
and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications
terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in
service from thereof their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin
to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of
absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all
consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages
from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the
aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the
Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have
performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not
impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant
Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6157
duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure
these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”
In the light of above discussion and findings the reference is answered as follows:-
AWARD
1--The action of the Department in disengaging the workmen in without notice or compensation in violation
of section 25G & 25F of the Act, the workmen are held entitled to be reinstated but without back wages and benefits.
2-Holding that the Department has adopted unfair labour practice with respect to the applicant Workmen by
taking work from his for years firstly as contract employee of the Department and thereafter as a outsourced employee
on contract when the vacancy is of permanent nature and is still available, the Department is directed to initiate a fair
and transparent process for recruitment for the position on which, the applicant Workmen has been working, within
six months from the date of publication of award in the Gazette Appellant Workmen shall be granted age relaxation
for the period he has worked on contract basis with Department or as outsourced employee. The Department shall
expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure that such longtime employees are not indefinitely retained
on contractual assignments or through outsourcing, contrary to statutory and equitable norms.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ministry as per rules for publication in official Gazette.
DATE:- 05/08/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1660.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
क्षेत्रीय जनदेिक, भारतीय ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, भोृाल (मध्य प्रदेि) प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सजचव, भारतीय
ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण श्रजमक संघ, जवददिा (मध्य प्रदेि) के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/एलसी /आर/27/2018), को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42011/18/2018 -आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1660.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/27/2018), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Regional Director, Archeological Survey of India, Bhopal (M.P.) and The Secretary,
Archeological Survey of India Worker’s Union, Vidisha (MP) Worker.
[No. L-42011/18/2018- IR(DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/27/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
The Secretary
Archeological Survey of India Worker’s Union
R/o Kila Andar, Near Water Tank, Bais Darwaja Marg
Vidisha (MP) - 464001
Workman
6158
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs
The Regional Director,
Archeological Survey of India,
1st Floor, Office Gall, Inner Court Building,
Bhopal (M.P.) - 462003
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 11thday of AUGUST - 2025)
As per letter dated 03/05/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has
been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No.
L-42011/18/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 03/05/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
―Whether the demand of Archeological Survey of India Employees Union (ASIEU) for regularization or
granting 1/30 status at par with MTS in respect of the workmen Sh Sanjay Dwivedi & 154 others
(annexed in A/1), is fair, just & legal? If so, what directions are necessary in the case?‖
Notice were issued to the parties, they appeared and filed their respective statement of defense and claims.
The Workman Union has taken a case in their statement of claim that they are a registered trade Union and his
affiliated with Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, it has resolve to raise dispute in hand on behalf of its members, name mention
in the list attached to the reference who have been engaged by the Department as Monuments Attendant in the respective
Monuments situated at different places in the State of M.P. These applicants have been continuously working at the
different monuments with outmost honesty and to the satisfaction of their superiors. They are getting minimum wages @
1/30th of the pay at minimum of relevant pay scale plus dearness allowances for Working of 8 hours as directed by the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Trainee) vide its letter dated
07.06.1988. According to the Workman Union these applicants have been working continuously for 240 days in every
year. There are 201 Monuments Attendants working against sanctioned strength of 447 to look after the Monuments of
290 Monuments, hence total 246 posts of regular Monument Attendants are lying vacant at present. There are total 631
daily wagers working in the various Offices/Monuments in the Bhopal Circle of the Department. Since, the work of
Monuments Attendants could not be done by the existing strength, the Department has engaged daily wagers/ casual
labors for this. The Ministry of personnel, public grievances and pension (Department of Personnel and Trainee) has
framed a scheme known as Casual Workers (grant of temporary status and regularization) scheme, 1993. According to
which the Casual Workers working with the Department are entitled to get temporary status and regularization of their
services if they had worked 240/206 days in one year. The Casual Workers who were illegible have also been granted
temporary status and benefit of regularization in other circles. The Department decide to discharge the services and
attempted to engage the applicants through outsourcing agencies which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. The job of
Monument Attendant is of permanent and perennial nature, hence could not be discharged to contractors. Also, one set of
Casual Workers can be replaced only with regular employees and not with other set of causal workers, hence, the action
of the Department is unjust and arbitrary. The Union has prayed that, the Department be directed to regularize the
services of the applicants and the Department be restrained to change the service conditions of the Applicants.
Notices were served on the Department. They did not appear. A letter dated 05.08.2019 was sent to by the
Superintendent Archeologist of the Department to the Secretary stating that these workers have filed a case before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Indore and Gwalior regarding termination of their services and status quo has
been ordered. It is requested in this letter that the proceeding of the case be postponed till the final decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench.
The Bunch of the cases before the Central Administrative Tribunal, at Jabalpur bench have been decided and a
photocopy of the Judgment has been filed by the Workman Union. The Tribunal has disposed the application directing
the department to grant the petitioners the status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of relevant pay scale of Group D +
D.A., if they are similarly situated to persons who have already been extended this status in pursuance to orders by
different benches of the Tribunal. It was further directed that this exercise be completed within period of 3 years from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
Since, the parties and the dispute before the petition/OA No. 200/600/2017 and connected objections are similar
as well has been heard and decided, this Judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal will operate as res judicata. Hence,
this reference is also answered as follows –
The Department is directed to grant status of 1/30th of pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale of a
Group C + D.A. to the Applicants within 03 months from the date of publication of the Award in Gazette.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 11/08/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6159
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1661.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंधक प्रभारी, न्यू भोृाल टेक्सटाइल जमल, भोृाल, मध्य प्रदेि प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री फूल ससह यादव,
महामंत्री, महासजचव कृड़ा कमडचारी संघ (इंटक), भोृाल, मध्य प्रदेि के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट (संदभड सं्या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/63/2020), को जजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
एल -42011/63/2020 -आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1661.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/63/2020), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to General Manager Incharge, New Bhopal Textile Mill, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and Shri
Phool Singh Yadav, Mahamantri, General Secretary Textile Employees Union (INTUC), Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh, Worker.
[No. L-42011/63/2020-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/2020
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Phool Singh Yadav, Mahamantri,
General Secretary Textile Employees Union (INTUC),
Shed-B-141, Ashoka Garden,
Govindpura Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh – 462011
Workman
Vs
General Manager Incharge,
New Bhopal Textile Mill,
Chandbad, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh -462011
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 05thday of AUGUST - 2025)
As per letter dated 11/09/2020 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has
been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification
No. L-42011/63/2020 (IR(DU)) dt. 11/09/2020. The dispute under reference relates to:
―क्मा टेक्सटाइर एम्प्रॉईस मूननमन (इंटक), बोऩार के ऩत्र ददनांक 26.12.2017 द्वाया दैननक वेतन बोगी कभमचारयमों को
ननममभत कभमचारयमों के सभान वेतनभान एवं उनके ननमभनतकयण की भांग उचचत व न्मामऩूणम है? मदद है, तो उक्त
कभमचायीगण ककस नतचथ से ओय ककन सुववधाओ के ऩाने के हकदाय होंगे? क्मा अन्म आदेश, मदद जरुयी हो तो, इस
सम्पफन्ध भें आवश्मक है ?"
6160
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Notice were issued to the parties, they appeared and filed their respective statement of defense and claims.
At evidence stage, none of the parties filed any evidences.
None appeared at the stage of argument. I have gone through the record.
The initial burden to proof its case is on the Workman Union in which they have failed. Hence, holding the
claim of the Workman Union, not proved they are held entitled to no benefit.
The reference stands answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 05/08/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1662.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
आयकर आयुि, आयकर भवन, जबलासृुर (छ.ग.); जनदेिक, मजससड. क्लीनटेक सर्ववसेज एवं वकड फोसड, रायृुर (छत्तीसगढ़)
प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री नारायण प्रसाद श्रीवास, भजसमा कोरबा (छत्तीसगढ़) के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/
एल/आर/103/2018), को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42012/153/2018 -आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1662.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/103/2018), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Income Tax Commissioner, Ayakar Bhawan, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh); The Director,
M/s. Cleantech Services & Work Force, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Shri Narayan Prasad Shriwas, Bhaisma
Korba (Chattisgarh), Worker.
[No. L-42012/153/2018 -IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/103/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Sh. Narayan Prasad Shriwas
S/o Bajrang Lal Shriwas,
Add – Saliha Bhatha, Po- Barpali,
Via – Bhaisma Korba (Chattisgarh) - 495450
Workman
Vs
1.
The Income Tax Commissioner,
Ayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) – 174001
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6161
2. The Director,
M/s. Cleantech Services & Work Force
Shankar Nagar, Near Water Tanki,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - 490042
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 01th day of July - 2025)
As per letter dated 05/12/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-
42012/153/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 05/12/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action on the part of the contractor M/s. Cleantech Service & Workforce, Raipur engaged by
the Income Tax Deaprtment, Bilaspur in terminating the workman Namely Sh. Narayan Prasad Shriwas in
the post of Data entry Operator and without paying the terminal benefits and without complying sec-25-f of
ID Act is appropriate and justified? If not, what relief the terminated workman Sh. Narayan Prasad Shriwas
is entitled to ?
2. Whether the workman in the dispute initially engaged by the Income Tax Department and later on
engaged under the contractor is entitled for regularization in the recruitment process?”
After registering a case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties.
According to the Workman, he worked with the Department as a daily wager from November, 2007 to
05.03.2010 and was disengaged without any notice or compensation or enquiry under an oral order of the Management
on 18.4.2017, which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
The Management or the Outsourcing Agency never appeared in spite of services. They did not filed any
written statement of defense. The case proceeded ex-parte against the Management.
The Workman did file some photocopy documents which he did not care to prove. He did not file any
evidence in support of his claim. He did not appear at the stage of argument also. I have gone through the record.
The initial burden to prove his claim is on the Workman, in which he has failed.
Hence, holding the case of the Workman not proved, the reference deserves to be answered against the
Workman and is stands answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 01/07/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1663.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
मु्य ृोस्ट्टमास्ट्टर जनरल, होिंगाबाद रोड, भोृाल (म.प्र.); जनदेिक, डाक सेवाएँ, इंदौर क्षेत्र, इंदौर (म.प्र.); प्रवर अधीक्षक
डाकघर, जबलृुर संभाग प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री मकसूद अहमद, जबलृुर के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट (संदभड सं्या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/एलसी
/आर/52/2019), को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-40012/12/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6162
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1663.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/52/2019), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to The Chief Post Master General, Hosangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.); The Director, Postal
Services, Indore Region, Indore (M.P.); Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Jabalpur Division and Sh.
Maqshood Ahmed, Jabalpur, Worker.
[No. L-40012/12/2019-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/52/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Sh. Maqshood Ahmed,
S/o Late Tasoor Hussain,
R/o 474, Benisingh ki taliya,
Mominpura, Gohalpur,
Jabalpur - 482001
Workman
Vs
1. The Chief Post Master General,
MP Circle Dak Bhawan,
Hosangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) – 462012
2. The Director, Postal Services,
Indore Region, Indore (M.P.) – 452001
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur - 482001
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 20nd day of August - 2025)
As per letter dated 19/06/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has
been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per Notification No.
L-40012/12/2019-IR(DU) dt. 19/06/2019. The dispute under reference relates to:
"क्मा प्रफंधन चीप ऩोस्ट भास्टय जनयर, भध्मप्रदेश सकमर, डाक बवन, बोऩार भ०प्र०/डामयेक्टय, ऩोस्ट सववमसेज, इंदौय
यीजन, इंदौय भ०प्र०/ सीननमय सुप्रीन्टेडेंट ऑप ऩोस्ट आकपस, जफरऩुय डडवीजन, जफरऩुय भ०प्र० के द्वाया श्री भकसूद
अहभद बूतऩूवम ग्राभीण डाक सेवक को आदेश ददनांक 11.5.2016 के द्वाया सेवा से फर्ामस्त ककमे जाने की काममवाही
न्मामोचचत है मदद नहीं तो संफंचधत आवेदक ककस अनुतोष के हकदाय है?"
In the case in hand, parties appeared and filed their pleadings. A preliminary issue i.e. as follows was decided
in favor of the Department holding the Departmental Enquiry legal and proper.
―1. Whether the departmental inquiry conducted is legal and proper ?.
There was found no illegality or material irregularity regarding procedure or substance in the inquiry,
hence holding the departmental inquiry legal and proper, preliminary issue was answered accordingly. This order
Dated 27/11/2024 is part of this judgment.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6163
The second issue framed was the maintainability of the reference before this Tribunal.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the Workman Mr. Vijay Tripathi and for the Department Mr.
S.K. Mishra. I have gone through the record as well.
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines workman as follows:
"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be
express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes
any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that
dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person:
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)
who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the
powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
Learned Counsel for Management has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Sub-
Divisional Inspector of Post Vaikam and Others V.s. Theyyam Joseph and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1271
wherein it has been held that the Postal Department is not an Industry as defined in the Industrial Dispute Act, and the
extra departmental agents are not workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, Hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
entertain the claim.
Learned Senior Counsel for workman has referred to another full Court Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of General Manager Telecom V.s. A. Srinivasa Rao Reported in (1997)8 SCC 767 in which three
Judge Bench of Hon‘ble Supreme Court overruled its judgment in Telecom Case (supra) and held that the Postal
Department is also a Industry as defined in the Industrial Dispute Act. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the
light of the Judgment in Srinivasa Rao case (supra) this Tribunal is within its power to entertain the reference. This
argument has been countered by Learned Counsel for Management with a argument that the observation of Hon‘ble
Supreme Court in the case of Theyyam (supra) that since there are specific rules with respect to recruitment etc. of extra
departmental agents, they are not Workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 has not been overruled, the
applicant is still not a Workman under the Act. The argument from the side of Management appears to be convincing and
is accepted because the finding in the previous judgement in the case of Theyyam (supra) that the extra departmental
agents are not Workman have not been overruled by the full Bench in the A. Srinivasa case (supra). Hence, the
Applicant is held not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and the issue is answered accordingly.
Consequently, the reference is held not entertainable by this Tribunal.
AWARD
In the light of above discussion and findings, as mentioned above, the reference stands answered against
the Workman.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 20/08/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1664.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
रजजस्ट्रार, डॉ. हररससह गौर जवश्व जवद्यालय (सेंट यूजनवर्वसटी), सागर (म.प्र.) प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री. अजीत
जजन, अध्यक्ष जवश्व जवद्यालय कामगार यूजनयन, सागर (म.प्र.) के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण-
सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या आईडी नंबर सीजीआईटी/एल/आर/71/2018), को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42011/87/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6164
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1664.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID.No. CGIT/LC/R/71/2018), of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to Ragistrar, Dr. Harisingh Gaur Visvidhayalaya (Cent. University), Sagar (M.P) and Shri.
Ajeet Jain, President Vishvidhyalaya Kamgar Union, Sagar (M.P.), Worker.
[No. L-42011/87/2018-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Sh. Ajeet Jain,
President Vishvidhyalaya Kamgar Union,
Padmakar School Gate, Namak Mandi,
Katra Bazar, Sagar (M.P.) - 470003
Workman
Vs
Ragistrar,
Dr. Harisingh Gaur Visvidhayalaya
(Cent. University)
Sagar (M.P.) - 470003
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 01st day of July - 2025)
As per letter dated 13/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-
42011/87/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 13/11/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
"क्या प्रबंधन रजिस्ट्रार, डॉ हरीस ंह गौर विश्िविद्याऱय, (केन्द्रीय विद्याऱय) ागर मा० प्र० के द्िारा श्री कवऩऱ ऩचोरी
दैननक िेतन भोगी ननम्न श्रेणी सऱवऩक / हायक ग्रेड-3 को ददनांक 01.11.2011 े ननयोिन में रखने ऩश्चात स्ट्थाई
कममचारी के तौर ऩर ननम्न श्रेणी सऱवऩक / हायक ग्रेड-3 के ऩद ऩर िगीकरण न करते हुए उनके िास्ट्तविक ऩद का
िेतनमान प्रदान न करना एिं ददनांक 25.10.2017 े उनकी ेिाएं माप्त ककये िाने की कायमिाही न्द्यायोचचत है यदद
नहीं, तो ंबंचधत कममचारी कक अनुतोष का हकदार है ?"
After registering a case on the basis of reference, notices were sent to the parties. The Workman never
appeared and did not filed any statement of claim.
Management filed its written statement, wherein it was stated that the Workman Kapil Pachori was not
appointed against any vacant and sanctioned post. He was only engaged on contractual basis. His term was extended
from time to time. He was disengaged after his contract of employment was not extended.
None appeared at the stage of argument. I have gone through the record.
The initial burden to prove his case is on the Workman side. They did not appear and did not even file
statement of claim or any evidences.
Hence, holding the claim of the Workmen Union not proved the reference deserves to be answered
against the Workman and hence answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 01/07/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6165
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1665.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में,केन्द्रीय सरकार
महाप्रबंधक, एनएचृीसी, ृाबडती जलजवद्युत ृररयोजना, चरण- II, नगवाईन, उृ-तहसील औट, मंडी (जहमाचल प्रदेि) के
प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जजतेन्दर ससह, कुल्लू (जहमाचल प्रदेि) के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-श्रम न्यायालय-2, चंडीगढ़, ृंचाट (संदभड सं्या 249/2013)को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42012/177/2012-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1665.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 249/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court -2, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
General Manager, NHPC, Parbati HE Project, Stage-II, Nagwain, Sub-Tehsil Aut, Mandi (HP) and Sh. Jitender
Singh, Kullu (HP), Workmen.
[No. L-42012/177/2012-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.249/2013
Registered on:-08.04.2013
Sh. Jitender Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Chand Rana, Village Sarabai, PO Bhunter, Kullu (HP)
-------- Workman
Versus
General Manager, NHPC, Parbati HE Project, Stage-II, Nagwain, Sub-Tehsil Aut, Mandi (HP)
----Management
Present:-
Ms. Archana Soni, AR for workmen.
Sh. Tarun Gupta, AR for management.
Award : 05.08.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.L-42012/177/2012-IR(DU) dated 07.03.2013, under 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 the management of General Manager, NHPC, Parbati HE Project, Stage-II
Nagwain in terminating the services of Jitender Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Chand w.e.f. 05.02.2008 is just and
legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The brief facts, related to the case are that the workman was given employment by the management as training
helper w.e.f. 04.05.2005. On account of his ill health from 07.02.2008 to 07.09.2008, he could not join his duty which is
evident from the medical certificate dated 06.09.2008 (Annexure W-1) issued by Govt. Medical Civil Health Centre,
Ratti. When the workman reported to join his duty on 09.08.2008 to the manager NHPC refused to take his joining report
6166
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
without any valid and legal reason by stating that he has been removed from the job. On this, the workman submitted
detailed representation along with medical certificate dated 06.09.2008 (Annexure W-1) to the managing director,
Parbati Project but the said representation was rejected in mechanical manner with the intention to deprive the workman
from the job. In the said representation, workman has narrated all the facts regarding his ill-ness and ill-health which is
supported by Medical Certificate. But even then the NHPC authority has rejected his request with intention to employee
some other person in his place and deprived him from his job for their vested interest. When the permission to start the
project in question was given by the State Govt. at the present place, it was specifically agreed by the NHPC Authorities
with state Govt. of H.P. to provide job to the land looser and Himachali persons at priority basis. Workman got the job
according to the definition of Rehabilitation Resettlement Plan. But now the NHPC has started to remove the employees
one by one on false and frivolous allegations and not considered grievances in the medical evidence when they could not
join duty on account of illness. This act of NHPC is totally illegal and against the principle of natural justice and they
have removed the workman without issuing any notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act. The Managing
Director has not cared to note the fact that the absence of the workman was neither intentional nor willful, but which
occurred due to his illness. NHPC be directed to allow the workman to join his services and absence period may be
treated as duty period for all intents and purposes. It is prayed that the present claim statement be allowed and the order
dated 24.11.2008 be set aside and the workman be reinstated in service along with all consequential benefits.
2.
Notice of claim was given to the management, who filed reply thereof maintaining therein that the workman
was appointed as trainee helper on a total emolument of Rs.4000/- per month for a period of one year under the
Rehabilitation and resettlement plan on 04.05.2005. His training period was for a period of one year and then for another
year he was supposed to be on probation period. As per terms and conditions of his appointment letter, his services can
be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof. The workman was a habitual absentee. Since the date of
his joining, he never took his job seriously. After two months of his joining, he remained absent w.e.f. 04.07.2005 to
30.06.2006 unauthorizedly during the training period for 130 days. For this notices (Annexure I-A to I-G) were issued to
the workman. However, the absence period was regularized on humanitarian ground by sanctioning extra ordinary leave
i.e. leave without pay by the management. Despite this, the workman again remained unauthorized absent during training
period w.e.f. 24.07.2006 to 03.11.2007 for 82.5 days on different dates (Annexure –II). He was found absent from the
duties for a total of 212.5 days during his training period out of which the second portion of 82.5 days is still
unregularized. Consequently, memorandum dated 05.11.2007 was issued by the Assistant Manager (Admn.)-cum-
Disciplinary Authority to hold an enquiry against the workman under clause no.14 of the Model Standing Orders as
applicable in respect of management. The workman has accepted the charges (Annexure III-A dated 18.01.2008) leveled
against him and inquiry officer after conducting the domestic inquiry submitted the inquiry report and the charges were
proved (Annexure IV dated 11.02.2008). It is further maintained that once again, the workman remained absent w.e.f.
05.02.2008 without prior permission/sanction of leave. Three notices (Annexure V to Annexure VII) were sent through
registered post to the workman to resume duty immediately, but were returned back with remarks that eh person
concerned is ill and admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, a last and final notice dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure-VIII) was
sent to the workman thereby directing him to resume duty within 20 days from the date of issuance of notice. In
response, a telegram dated 15.04.2008 (Annexure-IX) received intimating to extend leave on medical ground till
recovery. However, no medical certificate or information in support of illness had been sent. Notice of unauthorized
absent were also published in two local newspapers on 12.07.2008 (Annexure-X) and on 10.07.2008 (Annexure-XI)
directing him to submit his written explanation within a period of 10 days from the date of publishing of the notice.
However, the workman failed to submit his written explanation within the stipulated period. Pursuant to memorandum
dated 05.11.2007, the gravity of misconduct as well as past record, the facts and circumstances of the case, in
consideration of report of enquiry officer and notice dated 10.07.2008, it was presumed that he has left the services on
his own accord and accordingly, his name was struck off from the rolls of the management w.e.f. 05.02.2008 i.e. from
the date of absence vide order dated 02.08.2008(Annexure-XII). In response to the order dated 02.08.2008, a
representation dated 27.09.2008 was received for reinstatement. In reference to the letter of workman, he was called for a
personal hearing in the chamber of Chief (HR), where he was shown all the records pertaining to his conduct during his
tenure. Accordingly, a reply dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure-XIII) was sent by the Appellate Authority (Chief HR) at his
permanent address stating that his plea for reinstatement cannot be accepted taking into account the facts and
circumstances of the case. The matter regarding employment of workman was considered by the reviewing authority i.e.
Head of the Project and he agreed with the penalty so imposed and his appeal/request was disposed of by reviewing
authority, which was communicated to the workman office note dated 17.12.2008 and letter dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure
XIV & XV). Thus the services of the workman were terminated after conducting proper inquiry and procedure and
opportunity of personal hearing granted to the workman. Hence, there is no violation of Section 25F of the Act. It is
prayed that the present claim statement be dismissed along with cost.
3.
Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.
Evidence of workman:
4.
Workman has examined himself as WW1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.A1 and has been cross-
examined by the AR of management. He also tendered medical certificate dated 06.09.2008 (Annexure W-1) and notice
dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure W-2). AR for workman closed the evidence on behalf of workman on 16.02.2015.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6167
Evidence of respondents:-
5.
The respondents have filed affidavit of Sh. Siraj Ahmad, Manager, who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.R-1
and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman. He also tendered documents R-2. AR for respondents
closed the evidence on 16.09.2015 and the case is fixed for arguments.
List of documents relied upon by both the parties:-
Sr. No.
Document
Dated
Annexure/Exhibit
1.
Medical Certificate
06.09.2008
(Annexure W-1)
2.
Notice
21.05.2004
(Annexure W-2)
3.
Memorandum
05.11.2007
(Annexure-III)
4.
Letter
18.01.2008
(Annexure III-A)
5.
Inquiry Report
11.02.2008
(Annexure-IV)
6.
Notice
15.02.2008
(Annexure-V)
7.
Notice
29.02.2008
(Annexure-VI)
8.
Notice
10.03.2008
(Annexure-VII)
9.
Final Notice
10.04.2008
(Annexure-VIII)
10.
Telegram
15.04.2008
(Annexure-IX)
11.
Publication
10.07.2008
(Annexure-X)
12.
Publication
12.07.2008
(Annexure-XI)
13.
Order
02.08.2008
(Annexure-XII)
14.
Reply
24.11.2008
(Annexure-XIII)
15.
Office Note
17.12.2008
(Annexure-XIV)
16.
Order
15.01.2009
(Annexure-XV)
Submissions of workman:-
6.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that in this case, workman was appointed as trainee helper
vide office order dated 04.05.2005 of the respondent. He became ill from 07.02.2008 to 07.09.2008 as per medical
certificate dated 06.09.2008 (Annexure W-1) and thereafter, he went to join duty on 08.09.2008 to the Manager, NHPC,
but he refused to take his joining report. Workman is a land less person and was given employment on the basis of RR
Plan. Thereafter, workman submitted detailed representation along with medical certificate to the Managing Director,
NHPC, but the said representation was rejected vide order dated 24.11.2018, which is totally illegal and without
following the procedure under the Act.
Submissions of respondents:-
7.
AR for respondents reiterated the reply in his arguments. He stated that the workman was habitual absentee.
Therefore, he was served upon a memorandum dated 05.11.2007. The workman has admitted his charges vide letter
dated 18.01.2008 and thereafter, vide inquiry report dated 11.02.2008 (Annexure-IV), he was found guilty. Thereafter,
he was served upon many notices and ultimately he was removed from service vide order dated 02.08.2008 (Annexure-
XII) and his representation dated 27.09.2008 was also decided vide order dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure-XV) after
receiving his reply and after giving him full opportunity.
Findings:-
8.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the AR both the parties.
9.
Admittedly as per submissions and written documents placed on file, the workman was appointed as trainee
helper on 04.05.2005 with one year of training and thereafter one year of probation. The workman after two months
started remaining absent and during the period 04.07.2005 to 30.06.2006, he remained absent for about 130 days.
However, on humanitarian ground, he was granted extraordinary leave. The workman joined the duty thereafter on
01.07.2016. But he again started remaining absent from 24.07.2006 till 03.11.2007 for about 82.5 days during his period
6168
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of probation and training. He thereafter joined on 05.11.2007. Due to remaining absent, he was issued memorandum
dated 05.11.2007 (Annexure-III) by the disciplinary authority to hold enquiry against the workman under Clause 14 of
the Model Standing Order as applicable to the workman. He was also served upon the articles of charges and list of
documents relied upon by the management. On 18.01.2008, the workman accepted the charges through his letter dated
18.01.2008 (Annexure III-A), in which he has stated that he is not physically and mentally fit and as and when he got
problem, he remained on leave without intimation and he sought pardon on the ground and stated that he would not
repeat it again. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted against him and enquiry officer vide his report dated 11.02.2008
(Annexure-IV) and found that the workman was habitual neglect of work and was in the habit of frequent repetition of
the misconduct of remaining absent from his duties despite repeated warning issued by the management and the enquiry
officer held him guilty. However, in the meanwhile, workman started remaining absent w.e.f. 05.02.2008 without leave
and intimation and remained as such absent till 23.07.2008 for about 170 days. He was sent notices Annexure-V dated
15.02.2008, Annexure-VI dated 29.02.2008 and Annexure-VII dated 10.03.2008 maintaining that you are absent w.e.f.
05.02.2008 and was directed to resume duty immediately. However, he did not join duty and thereafter final notice dated
10.04.2008 (Annexure-VIII) was issued seeking his explanation within 20 days from the date of issue of notice as to why
he should not be removed from the services. Thereafter, a telegram dated 15.04.2008 (Annexure-IX) was received from
the workman, requesting to extend leave on medical ground till recovery. Thereafter, notice of unauthorized absent was
also published in two newspapers dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure-X) and 12.07.2008 (Annexure-XI) regarding his absent
and ultimately, he was removed from service vide office order dated 02.08.2008 (Annexure-XII) w.e.f. 05.02.2008.
Thereafter, in response to the office order dated 02.08.2008, workman made representation dated 27.09.2008 for his re-
instatement and reply was sent on 24.11.2008 (Annexure-XIII) by appellate authority maintaining therein that he could
not be reinstated. His appeal was disposed of vide letter/order dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure-XV). Thus the workman was
terminated after holding proper enquiry and after affording full opportunity to the workman to defend his case. There is
no violation of Section 25F of the Act, since the workman has been removed from the service after holding enquiry in his
matter due to his absence. Nothing has been pointed out by the AR for workman that enquiry was not in accordance with
the procedure established by law. Mere argument is regarding the non compliance of Section 25F of the Act.
10.
It is added here that in this case, there was no necessity of complying with Section 25F of the Act, as the
workman, after his holding guilty for misconduct of having unauthorized absent and even his representation dated
27.09.2008 was decided affording him opportunity of being heard and after receiving reply, was removed from service
on 02.08.2008 w.e.f. 05.02.2008. There is no ground to interfere in the order dated 02.08.2008 passed by the punishing
authority as well as appellate authority dated 24.11.2008.
11.
Hence, the case is dismissed with above observations. The reference is answered against the workman.
12.
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, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1666.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
प्रबंध जनदेिक, टेंटेकल स्ट्वायर स्ट्वाड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड,
टाउनजिृ प्रिासन, नेवेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री डी. इम्मानुवेल इंबाकुमार, मंदारकुप्ृम, नेवेली, कुड्डालोर,
तजमलनाडु, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय- चेन्नई ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या 51/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/191-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1666.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd., Nolambur, Chennai; The General Manager,
M/s. NLC India Limited, Township Administration, Neyveli and Sh. D.Immanuvel Inbakumar, Mandarakuppam,
Neyveli, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/191- IR DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6169
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 51/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 15-07-2025
Sh. D.Immanuvel Inbakumar,
No.53, Balaji Nagar,
Mandarakuppam, Neyveli,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 802
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd.
MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3rd Main Road
Nolambur, Chennai 600037
: First Respondent
2. The General Manager
M/s. NLC India Limited
Township Administration
Neyveli – 607801
: Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent No.2
:
M/s. N. Nithianandam
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 01/22/2021/PDY/ADJ/A1
dated 30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Shri D.Immanuvel Inbakumar alleging termination of employment w.e.f. 18.08.2020 by
the management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 30.06.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 51/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
01.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further adjournments
to 17.10.2022, 28.11.2022 and 01.02.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second Respondent filed Vakalat
Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 30.06.2022 to this
Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore
well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was
once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 01.06.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up nor
any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not furnished in any
manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 was present. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient
opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which would
be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.
6170
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with the
case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government, as there
exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
(Dictated and transcribed by PA and
corrected and pronounced in the open
court on this day the 15.07.2025)
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1667.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार प्रबंध जनदेिक, टेंटेकल स्ट्वायर स्ट्वाड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड एनएलसी इंजडया
जलजमटेड, टाउनजिृ प्रिासन, नेवेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री बी.अिोकन, मारुंगुर ृोस्ट्ट, ृनरुजत,
कुड्डालोर, तजमलनाडु, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-
श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई ृंचाट (संदभड सं्या 53/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/192-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1667.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd., Nolambur, Chennai; The General Manager, M/s. NLC
India Limited, Township Administration, Neyveli and Shri B.Asokan, Marungur Post, Panruti, Cuddalore, Tamil
Nadu, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/192- IR DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 53/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II , PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16-07-2025
Shri B.Asokan
S/o. Balakrishna,
1178, Keezahakollai,
Kumbakonam Main Road,
Marungur Post, Panruti,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 103.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
Tentacle Sequre Squads Pvt. Ltd.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6171
MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3rd Main Road
Nolambur, Chennai -600037.
: First Respondent
2. The General Manager
M/s. NLC India Limited
Township Administration
Neyveli – 607801.
: Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent No.1
:
None
For the Respondent No.2
:
M/s. N. Nithianandam
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 01/24/2021/PDY/ADJ/A1
dated 30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Shri B.Asokan alleging termination of employment w.e.f. 18.08.2020 by the management
of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 30.06.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 53/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
12.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further adjournments
to 17.10.2022, 28.11.2022 and 01.02.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second Respondent filed Vakalat
Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 30.06.2022 to this
Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore
well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was
once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 01.06.2023 and 02.08.2023. The Petitioner did
not turn up nor any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not
furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 was present. It reveals the Petitioner,
despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which would
be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with the
case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government, as there
exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
(Dictated and transcribed by PA and
corrected and pronounced in the open
court on this day the 16.07.2025)
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1668.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार
प्रबंध जनदेिक, टेंटेकल स्ट्वायर स्ट्वाड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड,
टाउनजिृ प्रिासन, नेवेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री एम.जवजयकुमार, अबथनृुरम, वडालूर, कुड्डालोर,
तजमलनाडु, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय- चेन्नई ृंचाट (संदभड सं्या 54/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/193-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6172
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1668.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd., Nolambur, Chennai; The General Manager, M/s. NLC
India Limited, Township Administration, Neyveli and Shri M.Vijayakumar,Abathanapuram, Vadalur,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/193- IR-DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 54/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II , PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16-07-2025
Shri M.Vijayakumar,
S/o. P.Mutavel,
No.75, Panruti Main Road,
Abathanapuram, Vadalur,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 303.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
Tentacle Sequre Squads Pvt. Ltd.
MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3rd Main Road
Nolambur, Chennai -600037.
: First Respondent
2. The General Manager
M/s. NLC India Limited
Township Administration
Neyveli – 607801.
: Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent No.1
:
None
For the Respondent No.2
:
M/s. N. Nithianandam
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 01/25/2021/PDY/Adj/A1 dated
30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Shri M.Vijayakumar alleging termination of employment w.e.f. 18.08.2020 by the
management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6173
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 30.06.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 54/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
12.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel/Authorized Representative turned up resulting further adjournments
to 17.10.2022, 28.11.2022 and 01.02.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second Respondent filed Vakalat
Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 30.06.2022 to this
Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore
well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was
once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 01.06.2023 and 02.08.2023. The Petitioner did
not turn up nor any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not
furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 was present. It reveals the Petitioner,
despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which would
be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with the
case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government, as there
exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
(Dictated and transcribed by PA and
corrected and pronounced in the open
court on this day the 16.07.2025)
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1669.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रबंध
जनदेिक, टेंटेकल स्ट्वायर स्ट्वाड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड, टाउनजिृ
प्रिासन, नेवेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री यू.मुरली बाबू, इंददरा नगर, नेवेली, कुड्डालोर, तजमलनाडु, कामगार
के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई ृंचाट(संदभड
सं्या 55/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
एल-42025/07/2025/194-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1669.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 55/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd., Nolambur, Chennai; The General Manager, M/s. NLC
India Limited, Township Administration, Neyveli and Shri U.Murali Babu, Indira Nagar, Neyveli, Cuddalore,
Tamil Nadu, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/194- IR -DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 55/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II , PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16-07-2025
6174
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri U.Murali Babu,
S/o. Uthandi,
No.55, B2 Block, Matru Kudiyiruppu,
Indira Nagar, Neyveli,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 801.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The Managing Director
Tentacle Sequre Squads Pvt. Ltd.
MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3rd Main Road
Nolambur, Chennai -600037.
: First Respondent
2.
The General Manager
M/s. NLC India Limited
Township Administration
Neyveli – 607801.
: Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent No.1
:
None
For the Respondent No.2
:
M/s. N. Nithianandam
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 01/26/2021/PDY/ADJ/A1
dated 30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Shri U.Murali Babu alleging termination of employment w.e.f. 18.08.2020 by the
management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 30.06.2022 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 55/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case
to 13.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further
adjournments to 18.10.2022, 29.11.2022 and 01.02.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second
Respondent filed Vakalat Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the
reference dated 30.06.2022 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner
and all the opposite parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference.
Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement
fixing the case to 01.06.2023 and 02.08.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up nor any authorized representative
of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not furnished in any manner by the
Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 was present. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient
opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which would
be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6175
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with the
case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate
Government, as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
5.
In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1670.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रबंध
जनदेिक, टेंटेकल स्ट्वायर स्ट्वाड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड, टाउनजिृ
प्रिासन, नेवेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री के.कानागासबाई, इंददरा नगर, नेवेली, कुड्डालोर, तजमलनाडु,
कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई
ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या 57/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
एल-42025/07/2025/195-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1670.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd., Nolambur, Chennai; The General Manager, M/s. NLC
India Limited, Township Administration, Neyveli and Shri K.Kanagasabai,Indira Nagar, Neyveli, Cuddalore,
Tamil Nadu, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/195- IR-DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 57/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II , PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16-07-2025
Shri K.Kanagasabai,
S/o. Kaliyaperumal,
No. B2 Block-45, Matru Kudiyiruppu,
Indira Nagar, Neyveli,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 801.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
Tentacle Sequre Squads Pvt. Ltd.
MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3rd Main Road
Nolambur, Chennai -600037.
: First Respondent
6176
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The General Manager
M/s. NLC India Limited
Township Administration
Neyveli – 607801.
: Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent No.1
:
None
For the Respondent No.2
:
M/s. N. Nithianandam
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order
No. 01/28/2021/PDY/ADJ/A1 dated 30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Shri K.Kanagasabai alleging termination of employment w.e.f.
18.08.2020 by the management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 30.06.2022 from the appropriate
Government, the dispute was registered as ID No. 57/2022 and due notices were issued to
both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to 14.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner
nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further adjournments to
03.11.2022, 26.11.2022 and 01.02.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the
Second Respondent filed Vakalat Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while
the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 30.06.2022 to this Tribunal for adjudication,
copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is
therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in
the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim
statement fixing the case to 01.06.2023 and 02.08.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up nor
any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim
statement was not furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present,
whereas R2 was present. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose
not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6177
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any
other date which would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was
reserved for Final Order.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no
interest to proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the
dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government, as there exists no Industrial Dispute
for adjudication as per the reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1671.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रबंध
जनदेिक, टेंटेकल स्ट्वायर स्ट्वाड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड, टाउनजिृ
प्रिासन, नेवेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री बी.मजणवन्नन, मुथनाई ृोस्ट्ट, जवररधाचलम, कुड्डालोर, तजमलनाडु,
कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई
ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या 58/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
एल-42025/07/2025/196-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1671.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd., Nolambur, Chennai; The General Manager, M/s. NLC
India Limited, Township Administration, Neyveli and Shri B.Manivannan, Muthanai Post, Viridhachalam,
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/196- IR-DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 58/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II , PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16-07-2025
Shri B.Manivannan,
S/o. Balakrishnan,
No.272, Sengundhar Street,
Muthanai Post, Viridhachalam,
6178
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu-607 804.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
Tentacle Sequre Squads Pvt. Ltd.
MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3rd Main Road
Nolambur, Chennai -600037.
: First Respondent
2. The General Manager
M/s. NLC India Limited
Township Administration
Neyveli – 607801.
: Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent No.1
:
None
For the Respondent No.2
:
M/s. N. Nithianandam
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order
No. 01/29/2021/PDY/ADJ/A1 dated 30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Shri B.Manivannan alleging termination of employment w.e.f. 18.08.2020 by
the management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 30.06.2022 from the appropriate Government, the
dispute was registered as ID No. 58/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their
appearance fixing the case to 14.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized
Representative turned up resulting further adjournments to 03.11.2022, 26.11.2022 and 01.02.2023.
The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second Respondent filed Vakalat Nama. It reveals from
the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 30.06.2022 to this
Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite
parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then,
in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement
fixing the case to 01.06.2023 and 02.08.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up nor any authorized
representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not furnished in
any manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 was present. It reveals the
Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and
documents.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6179
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other
date which would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final
Order.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to
proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by
the Appropriate Government, as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the
reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 11 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1672.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रबंध
जनदेिक, टेंटेकल स्ट्वायर स्ट्वाड्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नोलंबूर, चेन्नई; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड एनएलसी इंजडया जलजमटेड, टाउनजिृ
प्रिासन, नेवेली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री आर.रामासामी, मंजाकोल्लई ृोस्ट्ट, भुवनाजगरी तालुक, तजमलनाडु,
कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई
ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या 60/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
एल-42025/07/2025/197-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2025
S.O. 1672.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to The
Managing Director, Tentacle Square Squads Pvt. Ltd., Nolambur, Chennai; The General Manager, M/s. NLC
India Limited, Township Administration, Neyveli and Shri R.Ramasamy, Manjakollai Post, Bhuvnagiri Taluk,
Tamil Nadu, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/197- IR-DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 60/2022
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II , PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 16-07-2025
Shri R.Ramasamy,
S/o. S.Rajakannu,
6180
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vathanayan Street,
South Veli-470, Manjakollai Post,
Bhuvnagiri Taluk, Tamil Nadu-608 601
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1. The Managing Director
Tentacle Sequre Squads Pvt. Ltd.
MIG-306, TNHB, Phase-II, 3rd Main Road
Nolambur, Chennai -600037.
: First Respondent
2. The General Manager
M/s. NLC India Limited
Township Administration
Neyveli – 607801.
: Second Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
None
For the Respondent No.1
:
None
For the Respondent No.2
:
M/s. N. Nithianandam
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order
No. 01/31/2021/PDY/ADJ/A1 dated 30.06.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Shri R.Ramasamy alleging termination of employment w.e.f. 18.08.2020 by
the management of Tentacle Sequre Squads P Ltd (NLC Contractor) is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 30.06.2022 from the appropriate Government, the
dispute was registered as ID No. 60/2022 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their
appearance fixing the case to 15.09.2022. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized
Representative turned up resulting further adjournments to 02.11.2022, 26.12.2022 and 01.02.2023.
The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Second Respondent filed Vakalat Nama. It reveals from
the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 30.06.2022 to this
Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite
parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then,
in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement
fixing the case to 01.06.2023 and 02.08.2023. The Petitioner did not turn up nor any authorized
representative of the counsel on his behalf were present. The claim statement was not furnished in
any manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 was present. It reveals the
Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and
documents.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6181
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other
date which would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final
Order.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to
proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by
the Appropriate Government, as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the
reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 12 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1673.—केंद्रीय सरकार, कमडचारी राज्य बीमा अजधजनयम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा 91क के साथ
ृर त धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार के श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना सं्यांक
का.आ. 1290, तारीख 3 जुलाई, 2025, जो भारत के राजृत्र, भाग 2, खंड 3, उृखंड (ii), में तारीख 12 जुलाई, 2025 को
प्रकाजित हुई थी, में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, अथाडत् :-
2. उि अजधसूचना में, प्रारंजभक ृजरा में, “मजससड गजस अथॉररटी ऑफ इंजडया जलजमटेड” अक्षरों और िब्दों के स्ट्थान
ृर, “गेल (इंजडया) जलजमटेड” िब्द और कोष्ठक रखे जाएंगे।
[फा. सं. एस-38014/03/2021-एसएस-I]
डी.एम. खरे, अवर सजचव
रटप्ृण: मूल जनयम, भारत के राजृत्र, भाग 2, खंड 3, उृखंड (ii) में तारीख 12 जुलाई ,202 5
द्वारा सं्यांक का
.
आ
.
1290
प्रकाजित हुए थे।
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2025
S.O. 1673.— In exercise of the powers conferred by section 88 read with section 91A of the Employees‘ State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments to the notification
of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, number S.O. 1290, dated 3rd July, 2025,
published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), dated the 12th July, 2025, namely:-
2.
In the said notification, in the opening paragraph, for the letters and words ―M/s Gas Authority of India
Limited‖, the words and brackets ―GAIL (India) Limited‖ shall be substituted.
[F. No. S-38014/03/2021-SS-I]
D.M. KHARE, Under Secy.
Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 2, Sub-section (ii), vide number
S.O. 1290, dated the 12th July, 2025.
नई ददल्ली, 12 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1674.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार एचडीएफसी स्ट्टैंडडड लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कंृनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सुदीृ अरोड़ा के बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोटा, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-(केन्द्रीय) 04/2012 (सीआईएस-
50/2014)) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ
15.09.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं
-17012/3/2011-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6182
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2025
S.O. 1674.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central) 04/2012 (CIS-50/2014)) of the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and Shri Sudeep Arora which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 15.09.2025.
[No. L-17012/3/2011-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&04@2012 ¼lhvkbZ,l&50@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060000302012½
fnukad LFkkfir% 17-04-2012
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz-
,y&17012@12@3@2011 vkbZvkj¼,e½ fn-23-02-2012
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
lqnhi vjksM+k iq= Jh lh ch vjksM+k] }kjk la;qDr egkea=h] fgUn etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dkWyksuh] Nkouh]
dksVk -------izkFkhZ
,oa
lhfu;j eSustj] tksuy g~;wqeu fjlkslsZt] ,pMh,Qlh] LVsMMZykbZQ ba';ksjsal dEiuh fy-] jft- vkWfQl
jeu gkÅl] ,pVh ikjs[k ekxZ] 169&csdos] fjDysesU'ku] ppZ xsV] eqEcbZ&400020
---------vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
,di{kh;
%vf/kfu.kZ;%
fn% 27-12-2024
jktLFkku ljdkj] Je foHkkx dh izklkafxd vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-02-2012 ds }kjk fuEu funsZ'k@fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&
"Whether Shri Sudeep Arora working as Sales Development Manager, can be treated as workman under Sectino
2-S of the ID Act, 1947 ? If yes, whether the action of the management of HDFC standard Life Insurance Co.
Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the service of Shri Sudeep Arora w.e.f. 01-06-2020 is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled ?"
2&mDr fookn ds U;k;ky; esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk
mifLFkr gksdj viuk LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks lhfu;j eSustj] tksuy
g~;weu fjlkslsZt] ,pMh,Qlh LVs.MMZ ykbZQ ba';ksjsal dEiuh fy- jft- vkWfQl jeu gkml] ,pVh ikjs[k ekxZ] 169&csdos] fjDysesU'ku] ppZ xsV
eqEcbZ] ftUgsa bl fookn esa vkxs pydj fu;kstd 'kCn ls lacksf/kr fd;k tkosxk us fu;qfDr i= fnukad 07-07-2007 ds }kjk lsYl MoyiesaV eSustj
ds in ij dksVk dk;kZy; esa fnukad 17-05-2007 ls fu;skftr fd;k x;k FkkA ;g fu;kstu 6 ekg ds izkscs'ku ij FkkA izkFkhZ fu;kstd ds ;gka
Dysfjdy uspj dk dk;Z dj jgk FkkA izkFkhZ dks fu;sktd ds ;gka fdlh deZpkjh dks fu;qfDr nsus] fdlh deZpkjh ds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh
djus vFkok fdlh deZpkjh dks lsok ls gVkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha FkkA blds vfrfjDr fu;kstd ds ;gka izkFkhZ ds fu;a=.k esa dksbZ vU;
deZpkjh Hkh ugha FkkA ,sls esa izkFkhZ oS/kkfud :i ls vf/kfu;e dh /kjk 2¼,l½ ds rgr odZesu dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA fu;sktd }kjk izkFkhZ dks
fnukad 01-06-2010 ds i= }kjk fu;qfDr i= fnukad 07&07&2007 ds DykWt 10¼,½ ds vuqlkj rqjUr izHkko ls gVk fn;k x;k tks voS/k gSA mDr
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6183
DykWt easa vafdr gS fd i{kdkj 3 ekg dk uksfVl fdlh Hkh le; nsdj vFkok rhu ekg dk osru Hkqxrku djds mDr fu;qfDr O;oLFkk dk ifjR;kx
dj ldrk gSA mDr DykWt ds vuqlkj fu;sktd us izkFhkZ dks rhu ekg dk uksfVl ugha fn;k uk gh rhu ekg ds vfxze osru dk Hkqxrku fd;kA bl
izdkj fu;sktd }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsok ls voS/k :i ls gVk;k x;k gS] tks fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½ ds vUrxZr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrk
gSA fu;kstd dEiuh esa izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds iwoZ 12 eghaus esa 100 ls vf/kd deZpkjh fu;ksftr Fks] ,sls esa fu;kstd ij vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25 ,u ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSa uk gh fu;kstd us gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ ofj"Brk lwph dk izdk'ku fd;k gS] ,sls esa izkFkhZ dks QLVZ de QLVZ xks
ds fl)kar dh vogsyuk djds ukSdjh ls gVk;k x;k gSA var esa fuosnu fd;k fd izkFkhZ dk fu"dklu vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS ,oa izkFkhZ dks fiNys laiw.kZ
osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
3&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha vkus ij vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fnukad 04-07-2013 dks ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh vey esa yk;h x;hA
4&lk{; esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls izkFkhZ lqnhi vjksM+k dk Lo;a dk 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA vizkFkhZ ds fo:) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh gksus ls ftjg
ugha dh x;hA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ gS ftldk ;Fkk le; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA
5&cgl izkFkhZ ,di{kh; :ils lquh xbZ tks mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius vius vH;kosnuksa ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd
fu;qfDr i= fnukad 07-07-2007 ds }kjk izkFkhZ dks lsYl MoyiesaV eSustj ds in ij fnukad 17-05-2007 ls fu;skftr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ fu;kstd
ds ;gka Dysfjdy uspj dk dk;Z dj jgk FkkA izkFkhZ dks fu;kstd ds ;gka fdlh deZpkjh dks fu;qfDr nsus] fdlh deZpkjh ds fo:) vuq'kklukRed
dk;Zokgh djus vFkok fdlh deZpkjh dks lsok ls gVkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha FkkA blds vfrfjDr fu;kstd ds ;gka izkFkhZ ds fu;a=.k esa dksbZ
vU; deZpkjh Hkh ugha FkkA ,sls esa izkFkhZ oS/kkfud :i ls vf/kfu;e dh /kjk 2¼,l½ ds rgr odZesu dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dks
fnukad 01-06-2010 ds i= }kjk fu;qfDr i= fnukad 07&07&2007 ds DykWt 10¼,½ ds vuqlkj rqjUr izHkko ls gVk fn;k x;k tks voS/k gSA var esa
izkFkhZ dks lsok esa cgkyh rFkk fiNys osru fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d
n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;s x;s] ftudk llEeku voyksdu fd;k x;k rFkk muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;kA%&
1- S.C. FLR Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. Page 417
2- Vijay Gautam Vs. Union of India & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12584/2010 Decided on 04-02-2011
6&bl izdj.k esa U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼,l½ ds vUrxZr ^^deZdkj (Workman)" dh
Js.kh esa vkrk gS vFkok ugha \
izkFkhZ us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ,oa lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk i= esa Lo;a ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mls izfri{kh us fn- 07-07-2007 ds }kjk
lsYl MoyiesaV esustj ds in ij lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;k FkkA gLrxr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ Jfed izn'kZ MCY;w- 1 fu;qfDr i= izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djk;k
x;k gS ftlesa izkFkhZ dks lsYl MoyiesaUV eSustj ds in ij fnukad 17-05-2007 ls fu;qDr fd;k tkuk vafdr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ
dks vizkFkhZ ds lsok i`Fkdrk ds laca/k esa tkjh i= fnukad 01-06-2010 tks fd izkFkhZ }kjk izn'kZ MCY;w- 2 ds :i esa iznf'kZr djk;k x;k gS esa Hkh izkFkhZ
dh lsYl MoyiesaV vkWfQlj ds in ls c[kkZLr fd;s tkus dk vadu gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ us tks nLrkostkr izn'kZ Mcy;w- 3 yxk;r 16 ysVj
vkWQ dUQeZs'ku o osru ds laca/k esa izLrqr dj iznf'kZr djk;s x;s gS] mu lHkh esa izkFkhZ dk in lsYl MoyiesaV eSustj ds :i esa vafdr gSA izkFkhZ us
vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ,oa lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk&i= esa Hkh ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mldks vizkFkhZ us lsYl MoyiesaV esustj ds in ij fnukad 07-
07-2007 ds fu;qfDr i= }kjk fu;ksftr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls 13740@& :i;s izfrekg osru rFkk 12000@& :i;s esfMdy lqfo/kk rFkk 6000@&
:i;s ,yVhlh dh lqfo/kk iznku dh x;h FkhA vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ ds rgr deZdkj dks ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gS %&
^^deZdkj^^ ls dksbZ ,slk O;fDr ¼ftlds vUrxZr f'k{kq Hkh vkrk gS½ vfHkizsr gS] tks fdlh m/kksx esa HkkM+s ;k buke ds fy, dksbZ 'kkjhfjd]
vdq'ky] dq'ky] rduhdh] lafdz;kRed] fyfidh; ;k i;Zos{kf.kd dk;Z djus ds fy, fu;ksftr gS pkgs fu;kstu ds fuca/ku vfHkO;Dr gksa ;k foof{kr]
vkSj fdlh vkS|ksfxd fookn ds laca/k esa bl vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dh fdlh dk;Zokgh ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, blds vUrxZr dksbZ ,slk O;fDr vkrk gS tks
ml fookn ds laca/k esa ;k mlds ifj.kkeLo:i inP;qr ;k mUeksfpr dj fn;k x;k gS ;k ftldh NaVuh dj nh xbZ gS vFkok ftldh inP;qfr]
mUekspu ;k NaVuh fd, tkus ls og fookn iSnk gqvk gks] fdUrq blds vUrxZr dksbZ ,slk O;fDr ugha vkrk gS tks &
¼i½ ok;qlsuk vf/kfu;e] 1950 ¼1950 dk 45½ ;k lsok vf/kfu;e] 1950¼1950 dk 46½ ;k ukSlsuk vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 62½ ds v/khu gks] vFkok
¼ii½ iqfyl lsok esa ;k fdlh dkjkxkj ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ;k vU; deZpkjh ds :i esa fu;ksftr gks] vFkok
¼iii½ eq[;r% izcU/kdh; ;k iz'kklfud gSfl;r esa fu;ksftr gks] vFkok
¼iv½ i;Zos{kf.kd izcU/kdh; ;k iz'kklfud gSfl;r esa fu;ksftr gks] vFkok i;Zos{kf.kd gSfl;r esa fu;ksftr gksrs gq, izfrekl ¼nl gtkj½ ls vf/kd
etnwjh ysrk gks vFkok ;k rks in ls layXu drZO;ksa dh izd`fr ds ;k vius esa fufgr 'kfDr;ksa ds dkj.k ,sls d`R;ksa dk iz;ksx djrk gS tks eq[;r%
izcU/kdh; izd`fr ds gSaA^^
izkFkhZ }kjk fyfidh; izd`fr ds dk;Z fd;s x;s gks vkSj izca/kdh; izd`fr ds dk;Z ugha fd;s x;s gks] bl laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izkFkhZ dh vksj
ls i=koyh ij is'k ugha dh x;h gSA
U;kf;d n`"Vkar Shrikant Vishnu Palwankar Vs presidingOfficer Firast Labour on 29 October, 1991 Equivalent
citation: 1992II LLJ 378 Bombay High Court esa ekuuh; ckWEcs mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd %&
"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Secs. 2(s) and 10- Foreman-Receiving salary over Rs500/-p.m. - Foreman requered
to assign work and supervise 6 to 8 employees, to make recommendation regarding grant of leave and make
appraisal of workmen working under him- Whether Such Foreman is "workman" within the meaning of Sec. 2(s)
of the Act.
6184
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Held: It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was mainly carrying out work of a technical nature
and only incidentally he was doing some supervisory work. If it is assumed that the petitioner was employed as a
technical workman, it is difficult to understand how duties, like allocation of jobs, assignment of work,
recommendation of leave, carrying out of promotional appraisal leave, carrying out of promotional appraisal could
be incidental to his main work.The expression "incidental" necessarily means that it is an appendage or a part of
something which is larger and substantial.
It is not disputed that the petitioner's monthly wages were in excess of Rs. 500/- p.m. The Labour Court, in
my opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Sec.
2(s) of the Act. The reference was therefore incompetent and the Labour Court rightly rejected the same.
U;kf;d n`"Vkar S.K Maini Vs Carona Sahu Co. Ltd AIR 1994SC 1824 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl}kUr
izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd Industrial Dispute Act (14 of 1947) S. 2(s)-Workman - Definition of - Test to determine whether
an employee is workman - Shop Manager/Incharge of a local shop of a big company- Discharging duties of
administrative and managerial nature - He is not a workman though either incidentally he is required to do some clerical
work or is not vested with power to appoint or discharge employees under him.
U;kf;d n`"Vkar Arkal Govind Rai Rao Vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. Bombay-1985 LAB I.C. 1008=AIR 1985 S.C.
985, esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl}kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd Industrial Dispute Act (14 of 1947) S. 2(s)-
"Workman"- Who is - determination - Test - Primary and basic duties constitute the criterion and not incidental duties.
U;kf;d n`"Vkar Mcleod and Co. Vs. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Others-AIR 1958 Calcutta 273 (V
45 C 69) esa ekuuh; dydrk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd& "Where it is found that a particular
employee belongs to the covenanted staff of officers; that all the privileges and conditions of officers apply to him; that
the condition and privileges of services applicable to clerks did not apply to him that he draws a salary of Rs. 575/- p.m.
and that he does some supervisory work, he is not workman within S. 2(s) of the Act.
7&vr% mDr lEiw.kZ foospu ls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ lsYl MoyiesaV eSustj ds :i esa O;oLFkkid ¼Managerial½ dk;ksZa dk lEiknu
djrk Fkk rFkk mldk osru rRle; izfrekg 10000@&:- ls vf/kd Fkk ,slh fLFkfr esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ,oa mPp U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fofHkUu
U;kf;d n`"Vkrksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds ifjizs{; esa izkFkhZ vkS-fo-vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼,l½ ds vUrxZr ^^deZdkj (Workman)" dh Js.kh esa ugha
vk,xkA tgka rd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Vijay Gautam Vs. Union of India & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.
12584/2010 Decided on 04-02-2011 dk iz'u gS rks mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa deZdkj o fu;sktd ds laca/kksa dks jkT; ljdkj dks r; ugha
fd;s tkus dk gokyk fn;k x;k gS tks fd gLrxr izdj.k ds U;k; fu.kZ;u ls lEc) ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d
n`"Vkar S.C. FLR Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. Page 417 ds rgr izfrikfnr fl)kar gLrxr izdj.k ds
rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ls izkFkhZ dks fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugha djrh gSA vr% izkFkhZ dks vf/kfu;ekUrxZr fdlh Hkh izdkj
dk dksbZ laj{k.k izkIr ugha gksus ls og fdlh vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj jsQzsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;s
tkus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 23-02-2012 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn
dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ lqnhi vjksM+k }kjk vizkFkhZ lhfu;j eSustj] tksuy g~;wqeu fjlkslsZt] ,pMh,Qlh] LVsMMZ ykbZQ
ba';ksjsal dEiuh fy-] jft- vkWfQl jeu gkÅl] ,pVh ikjs[k ekxZ] 169&csdos] fjDysesU'ku] ppZ xsV] eqEcbZ ds fu;kstu esa lsYl MoyiesaV esustj ds
in ij O;oLFkkid gSfl;r ¼Managerial Capacity½ ls dk;Z laikfnr fd, tkus ls ,oa rRle; mldk osru izfrekg 10000@&:- ls vf/kd
gksus ls og vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼,l½ ds vUrxZr ^^deZdkj (Workman)" dh Js.kh esa ugha vk,xk ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk
dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 27-12-2024 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks
izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1675.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] जबलृुर
dsiapkV(एलसी-आर/
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/134/2012-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6185
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1675.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/118/2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of S.E.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/134/2012 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/118/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Jamuna Prasad,
S/o Radhika Prasad,
Purani Basti,
Distt. – Annupur (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
1. The General Manager,
Sohagpur Area of SECL,
PO – Dhanpuri,
Distt. – Shahdol (M.P.)
2. The Sub-Area Manager,
Amlai-Bangwar SA of SECL,
PO- Bemhouri, Distt. Shahdol (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 22nd day of July- 2025)
As per letter dated 22/10/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has
been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No.
L-22012/134/2012(IR(CM-II)) dt. 22/10/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“"Whether the action of the Management of the Sohagpur Area of SECL (through Dy. General Manager,
Amlai-Bangwar-Damini Sub-Area of SECL) in terminating the service of Shri Jamuna Prasad is legal and
justified? To what relief the claimant is entitled for, and from which date?”
Notice were issued to the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
The case of the Workman is mainly that, he was a general Mazdoor, and was transferred along with other 49
workers to Bangwar Mine vide order of management dated 17.05.1994. According to him, he approached the
management of Bangwar Colliery to permit him to join his duties and file six applications within 18.05.1994 to
6186
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.09.2000 but management did not issue any joining letter then he filed an application to Director Personnel on
09.11.2005 and to the Chairman on 24.02.2009 in this respect. Management issued a charge-sheet dated 04/11.05.2011
under Clause-26.24 and 26.30 of Certified Standing Orders which is as follows -
26.24- Habitual absence without any sufficient reason.
26.30- Absence without any sufficient reason and without getting any leave sanctioned or over staying while on leave.
He submitted his reply on 13.05.2011. Being not satisfied with his reply, management instituted a Departmental
enquiry with respect to the charges vide order dated 20.05.2011. It is further the case of workman that the charges were
vague, the enquiry officer acted as a prosecutor and conducted enquiry without following the procedure and also in
violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The workman was awarded punishment of removal from service vide order of
management dated 25/26.08.2011. The Disciplinary Authority did not issue him show cause with respect to the findings
in the enquiry report and also did not supply copy of the enquiry report.
Case of management is that the workman has been habitually absenting himself from duty without any reason
and without getting any leave sanctioned. His attendance was 120 days in 1991, 74 days in 1992 and 62 days in 1993. He
further absented himself without any sufficient reason from 1994 till date of issuing charge-sheet i.e. 04/17.05.2011. He
was issued a charge-sheet and after considering his reply on charge-sheet, disciplinary enquiry was ordered against him.
The enquiry was held in five dates. The workman participated in the enquiry with his representative both the parties
adduced evidence. The Enquiry Officer submitted report of the enquiry holding him guilty of charges of misconduct
under Clause 26.24 and 26.30 of Certified Standing Orders. He was awarded punishment of removal from service by
Disciplinary Authority.
Following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings :
1. Whether, the enquiry conducted against the Workman is just, proper and legal?
2. Whether, the charges alleged against the Workman are proved from evidence?
3. Whether, the punishment of terminating the services of Workman is legal and proper?
4. What relief the Workman is entitled to?
Issue No. 1 was taken as preliminary issue and was decided vide order dated 20.03.2024 against Management
holding the departmental enquiry vitiated in law. This order is part of this judgment.
The Management was given opportunity to prove the charges before this Tribunal.
Management filed affidavit of its witness Aman Kumar Namdeo as his examination in chief. He filed and
proved the original enquiry documents. He was cross-examined by the Workman side. Management also filed
affidavit of it‘s another witness Parth Chatterjee as his examination-in-chief. The Workman did not turn up to cross-
examine him. Hence opportunity of cross-examination was closed.
Workman has not filed any evidence.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for Management Mr. Neeraj Kewat. None was present for Workman
at the time of argument. I have gone through the record as well.
Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 -
Charges against the Workman have been detailed earlier in this judgment. The management witness Parth
Chatterjee has stated in his affidavit that the Workman was a habitual absentee. His attendance particulars were very
poor from the year 1992 onwards. He worked only for 120 days in 1991, 74 days in 1992 and 62 days in 1993. He
was transferred to Bangwar Underground Mines vide order dated 17.05.1994 and was relieved by Management to
join his duties, but he never reached there. He was issued a charge sheet on 14/7.05.2011. His reply was found not
sufficient hence a Departmental enquiry was held and a punishment order was passed after the Enquiry Officer
concluded that the charges were proved. This Affidavit of the management witness is uncross-examined.
From the uncross-examined affidavit of the Management witness, the unauthorized absence Workman is prima
facie established. The burden now was on the Workman to justify his absence. Since, he has not adduced any
evidence he has failed in discharging this burden. Hence, in the light of above discussion, the charges as stated
above are held proved.
Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3 :
Keeping in view the fact that unauthorized absence is gross misconduct for which dismissal is also one of the
punishments and the fact of habitual unauthorized absence of the workman as done above, the punishment of
dismissal of the Workman from service appears to be a proper punishment.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6187
Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4 :
On the basis of above discussion and findings the workman is held entitled to no relief.
Reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of the Management of the Sohagpur Area of SECL (through Dy. General Manager,
Amlai-Bangwar-Damini Sub-Area of SECL) in terminating the service of Shri Jamuna Prasad is legal and justified,
the claimant workman is held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 22/07/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1676.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
एस.ई.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] जबलृुर dsiapkV(एलसी-आर/
/
) dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/91/2018-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1676.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/49/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of S.E.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/91/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/49/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Shri Sanat Kumar Shukla,
Regional Coordinator,
Coal Mine Employees Struggle Committee,
Sheetaldhara Landfill Project,
South Eastern Coal Fields, 684,
Kapildhara Colony,
Post Bijuri, District- Anuppur (M.P.) – 484224
Workman
Vs
Deputy Regional Manager,
Kurja Sub-Area, South Eastern Coal Fields,
PO- Bijuri, Dist- Anuppur (M.P.)- 484224
Management
6188
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 05thday of AUGUST - 2025)
As per letter dated 05/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has
been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No.
L-22012/91/2018 (IR(CM-2)) dt. 05/11/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
―उऩ ऺेत्रीम प्रफंधक कुजाम उऩऺेत्र, साउथ ईस्टनम कोर पील्डस मरमरटेड व्दाया कभमकाय श्री सनत कुभाय भैकेननकर कपटय
ददनांक 26-05-2013 से 27-06-2013 तक बफना ककसी कायण के सेवा हेतु उऩस्स्थत होने के फावजूद उनको अनुऩस्स्थत
कयना क्मा न्मामोचचत है ? मदद नहीं, तो श्री सनत कुभाय शुक्रा, क्मा अनुतोष ऩाने के हकदाय है ?‖
Notice were issued to the parties, they appeared and filed their respective statement of defense and claims.
Case of the workman is that, he is working with the Sheetal Dhara Project as Mechanical Fitter since 1993,
and is engaged in Union Activities. He is office bearer of Rashtriya Mazdoor Kishan Union, M.P. Unit. He had reported
on duty on 26.05.2013 and found that his absence was marked in the attendance register even on Sunday which was the
rest day. He was not allowed to work hence he filed an application before Mines Superintendent for allowing him to
work on is workplace which was not granted. He has not been paid his wages for this period since 26.05.2013. He raised
a dispute after failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred to this Tribunal.
According to the workman, this action of Management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He has prayed that
holding the action of Management illegal, he be wages for the period of absence and benefits.
Case of the Management is that, the Workman did not report on duty from 26.05.2013 to 27.06.2013, his
absence was marked in the Attendance Register, he reported on duty on 28.06.2013, thus he willfully absented himself
from duty without any intimation and authorization from 26.05.2013 to 27.06.2013, which is misconduct in the certified
standing orders. That his why his wages for the period he did not worked were not paid. He was put under no enquiry.
He was not awarded any other punishment.
At evidence stage, the Workman did not appeared. He did not file any evidence. He has filed letter of
Management dated 08.06.2015 which is admitted by Management. The other documents filed by him are notice by the
Labour Commissioner during conciliation, copy of reference etc.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness as his examination in chief and has proved documents Exhibit
M-1 to M-5, to be referred to as and when required.
The Workman did not appear at the stage of argument, hence argument of Mr. Neeraj Kewat Learned Counsel
for Management were heard. No written argument filed by any parties. I have gone through the record.
On perusal of record in the light of arguments, the reference itself appears to be the issue for determination.
The initial burden to proof his case is on the Workman, thus it is on him to proof that he was present on duty
and worked within the period 26.05.2013 to 27.06.2013. On the other hand, case of Management that the Workman was
absent from duty within this period is proved by uncontroverted affidavit and documents.
Hence, holding the claim of the Workman not proved, he is held entitled to no relief.
The reference stands answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 05/08/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1677.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एन.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] जबलृुर dsiapkV(एलसी-आर/
/
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/79/2018-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6189
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1677.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/-R/63/2018) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of N.C.L,and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/79/2018 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/63/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
President,
Rashtriya Colliery Shramik Sangh,
Quarter No. HB 226,
NCL Colony,
Jhingurada Pariyojna,
Post Jhingurada, District Singrouli (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
General Manger,
Jhingurada Pariyojna, NCL.,
Post Jhingurada, District Singrouli (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 21st day of July- 2025)
As per letter dated 13/11/2018 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has
been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification
No. L-22012/79/2018–IR (CM-2) dt. 13/11/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
―
”
”
After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and
filed their respective statements of claim and defence.
Case of the Workman is mainly that, he was first appointed as Pump Operator category- III in Katras Area
BCCL in the year 1993. His initial pay was Rs. 153.72/-. He worked with BCCL till 29.04.2004. He was given an option
6190
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
by the Head Office of the NCL that he may be transferred as General Mazdoor Category-I as there was no post of Pump
Operator available in NCL. He was further assured of protection of his pay which he was getting in BCCL in case he
opted for transfer to NCL. He made representation on 10.12.2003 and consented to his transfer to the post of General
Mazdoor Category-I on condition of protection of his pay. He was relieved from BCCL to join NCL, the place of his
transfer. He was posted as General Mazdoor Category-I in NCL vide order of management dated 06.05.2004, he was not
held entitled to any travelling allowances as it was a transfer on his request. The management of NCL fixed his salary at
Rs. 126/- per day which is lesser than salary Rs. 153.72/- per day which he was getting while he was working in BCCL.
According to the workman, he had consented for transfer only in case of protection of his pay which the
management had agreed, but the management of NCL unilaterally and arbitrarily fixed his salary in breach of the
assurance and conditions of protection of pay which they had agreed earlier.
He made several representations in this respect but of no avail. Thereafter he raised dispute with Labour
Commissioner. After failure of conciliation the reference was made to this Tribunal.
The workman has further alleged that, this action of management is unjust, arbitrary and mala fide. He has
prayed that he was held entitled to protection of pay by directing the management of NCL to pay the difference of salary
between BCCL and NCL with interest.
Case of the Management is that, firstly, the claim is barred by inordinate delay and latches on part of the
workman, the claim related to year 2004 but the dispute was raised in the year 2018 for which there is no justification.
According to management, the workman submitted an application for transfer of his service from BCCL where he was
working to another company, NCL. He had given an undertaking that he would accept the post of General Mazdoor
Category-I with initial pay scale. His request was granted and in these circumstances, he was released from BCCL vide
order dated 29-04/03.05.2004 and joined with NCL. Thereafter, he was placed at less scale admissible to General
Mazdoor Category-I on his transfer in NCL in the light of his consent in this respect, which was a condition of transfer to
his service. According to management, the workman filed an application on 05.01.2015 i.e., after 10 years on his
absorption in NCL, asking pay scale for Pump Operator category- III which was not granted. Thus, according to
management, the workman had requested for transfer to NCL consenting that he will be posted as General Mazdoor
Category-I and will not claim any protection of pay. Management has requested that the reference be answered against
the workman.
In evidence, the Workman has filed and proved, office order dated 29.04.2004 office order dated
06.05.2004, his salary slips, and his application dated 10.12.2003 before NCL, Singrouli for his transfer. Application
dated 05.12.2015 filed before General Manager, NCL and its reminder dated 19.05.2016, letter of the Union before the
Labour Commissioner which are Ex-W/1 to W/7
He has also filed his affidavit as his Examination-in-chief he has been examined by management.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness as his Examination-in-chief. This witness has been examined by
workman side, management has also proved documents Ex-M/1 to M/4 which are letter of management dated
02.01.2016, undertaking of the workman dated 10.12.2016, letter of management dated 13.12.2003, order dated 25-
26.02.2004.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the workman Mr. K.B. Singh and Mr. Neeraj Kewat Learned
Counsel for the Management. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in the light of rival arguments, the reference itself appears to be the issue for
determination.
The peripheral facts in the case in hand are not disputed. Parties are at issue only on the point, whether any
undertaking stating that he will not claim any protection of pay in case of his transfer from BCCL to NCL is granted by
management was in fact given by the workman or not? Management has referred to application of the workman dated
10.12.2003 which according to them is the undertaking by the workman. This application shows that the workman has
specifically stated that he has been working as Pump Operator category- III in Katras Colliery of BCCL he is ready and
consenting to be transferred to NCL as General Mazdoor Category-I if his basic salary is not affected. Hence, it is clear
that nowhere in this application the workman has relinquished his claim to pay protection rather the workman has
consented his transfer if his basic salary in BCCL is not affected in NCL.
The Learned Counsel for management has referred to order of management dated 13.12.2003. On perusal of
this letter goes to show that it was sent to Superintendent Engineer, Coal India by Personnel Manager of NCL. It
discloses that the management of NCL has communicated their inability to accept the transfer of the workman Manoj
Kumar Rai from BCCL vide its letter dated 20.11.2003 Shri Rai came to this office transfer and had given a written
undertaking to the effect that he agrees to work as a General Mazdoor Category-I in the event of his transfer from BCCL
and requested the Director Personnel, NCL to reconsider his transfer, thereafter, as the letter reveals, his case was
reviewed and his request was granted. Order dated 25-26.02.2004 is the office order issued by Superintendent Engineer,
Coal India requesting the General Manager, BCCL at Dhanbad to arrange and issue the releasing order in respect to the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6191
workman Shri Rai with a direction to report to General Manager, NCL at Singrouli, also it comes out that this transfer
shall be treated as requested transfer. This letter also does not mention any such undertaking by workman giving up his
claim for pay protection.
Furthermore, vide order dated 13.01.2025 management was directed by this Tribunal to produce the said
undertaking or its duly authenticated copy reference of which has been taken by management in their letter dated
13.12.2003. Management could not produce any such undertaking rather they filed an affidavit of Manager (P) K.P.
Sharma stating that no such documents were traceable in their office. This leads to credence to the case of workman and
his statement that they had never filed any undertaking as claimed by management in which he has given up his claim
regarding protection of pay, rather his request letter dated 13.12.2003 clearly shows that he had consented on transfer if
his pay was not decreased on his transfer or in other words his pay was protected on his transfer.
In light of above discussion, holding the claim of the management that the workman had himself given up
claim of pay protection on his transfer not proved the case of workman that he had agreed to transfer only in case, his
pay was protected, is held proved. Consequently, the action of Management NCL in not granting the pay protection to
the workman in case in hand is held unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
As regards the arguments of Learned Counsel for Management that, since the workman has raised a
dispute after 10 years of transfer, his claim is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay on his part. The Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947, does not provide for any limitation for raising a claim to no doubt it should be raised within a
reasonable period. Keeping in view the facts that the workman is a Mazdoor category labour, normally not aware of his
rights in law, this delay can be overlooked.
In the light of above discussion and findings the reference is answered as follows:-
AWARD
“Holding the action of management of NCL in not granting pay protection to the workman Manoj Kumar
Rai on his transfer from BCCL to NCL, unjust and illegal, the workman is held entitled to pay protection and the
management is obligated to pay the difference of wages to the workman within 60 days from the date of publication of
award in Gazette failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till payment.”
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 21/07/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1678.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एस.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
औद्योजगक न्यायाजधकरण-सह-श्रम न्यायालय-सह- अजतररि। जजला. एवं सत्र न्यायालय, गोदावरीखानी ds iapkV (ृहचान
. 01/2025) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 07
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22013/01/2025-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1678—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 01 / 2025) of the INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the Management of S.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 7/09/2025.
[No. L-22013/01/2025 – IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM- ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI.
PRESENT:- SRI Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO,
CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER.
WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 06th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.
6192
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D.No.01 of 2025
Between:-
Gare Prabhakar Ex-Coal Cutter, E.C-2838548, RKNT Mine, H.No.9-31, Arunakka Nagar,
Poshamma Gudi back side lane,
SRIRAMPUR, District: Mancherial – 505 303 (T.G)
… Petitioner/Workman.
A N D
1.
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Rep. By its General Manager, Srirampur Area,
Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District 504 303.
2.
Colliery Manager/Dy. General Manager, RKNT Incline,
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Srirampur Area, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District 504 303.
3.
Chairman and Managing Director,
The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Singareni Bhavan,
Red Hills, Khairathabad, Hyderabad 500 004.
...Respondents/Management.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of S/Sri K.Srinivas Rao, A.A.Shareef and
R.Rajender,
Advocates
for
the
Petitioner/Workman
and
of
Sri
T.Ravinder
Singh,
Advocate
for
Respondents/Management and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal
delivered the following:-
AWARD
This petition is filed U/Sec.2-A(2) of I.D. Act praying to set aside the dismissal order dt.27.09.2021 passed by
the Respondent No.1 and direct the Respondents‘/Company to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of
service, together with all attendant benefits and full back wages.
2. The alpha and omega of the case of the petitioner is as follows:-
2(a).
The petitioner was appointed as Badli-Coal Filler on 1988, he was confirmed as regular worker and he used to
discharge his duties to the best of his ability and up to the satisfaction of superior Officers. He worked at SRP-1, RK-5
and RKNT mines and while he worked as Coal Cutter at RKNT Mine, charge sheet dt.08.10.2020 was issued under
company's standing order 25.1, 25.23 and 25.39 alleging that the petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
from one Ramineni Ramaswamy, Trammer, RK-5 Incline, in the guise of mediating for his Medical Unfit. Basing on the
charge sheet formal enquiry was conducted with prefixed mind and petitioner was not provided any opportunity and he
petitioner was dismissed from services vide Proc. dt.27.09.2021.
2(b). While the petitioner was working as Coal Cutter at RKNT, SRP Area, two persons came to the RKNT Mine on
11.09.2020, stating that they are from Vigilance Department of SCCL and asked him whether he borrowed any amount
from any of his colleagues as hand loan. The petitioner clearly stated that he has not borrowed any amount from any one
and immediately, one of the Officers called one person by name Anumandala Kumar, General Mazdoor of RKNT
Incline and gave a dictation to the said Kumar. After that they have asked the petitioner to sign on the said paper. When
the petitioner requested to read out as to what was mentioned in the said paper, the Vigilance Officer stated that it is not
necessary to the petitioner and stated that the petitioner collected an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from one Ramineni
Ramaswamy, Trammer, RK-5 Incline under the guise of mediating his medical Invalidation. The said officers have
forcefully taken the signatures of the petitioner on the said paper and the said allegation is totally wrong.
2(c). The petitioner is an illiterate and except signing, he is unable to read and write and not known any Doctor or higher
Officers in the Respondents‘/Company. If the petitioner took any amount from Sri. Ramineni Ramaswamy, he has to
give complaint to the Police as well as Vigilance Department. But, as per the document dated 27.09.2019 shown to
petitioner in the enquiry which was said to be given by Ramineni Ramaswamy, it seems that to book a case against the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6193
petitioner the Vigilance Officers have obtained a false complainant to save the officers who were involved in the Medical
Scam. At the time of enquiry, the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to call the said Ramineni Ramaswamy/alleged
Complainant to examine him and Sri. Bandi Mallaiah. But, the Enquiry Officer not called the Complainant or any one on
behalf the Management as their witness. In this case, neither complainant nor any other witness was examined even
though the petitioner requested for their examination.
2(d). The enquiry was conducted with a biased manner and with a malafide intention and the petitioner believed them
and signed. The petitioner did not know any Doctor of the main Hospital, Kothagudem or any higher Officers in the
company and it is not possible to a common man to manage the Medical Board for Medical invalidation, without support
of either Doctors or Higher Officers. The enquiry was conducted by fixing to prove the allegations against the petitioner
and made him a scapegoat. Even the complaint or his witnesses were not produced before the enquiry Officer though the
petitioner requested and the same was also not entered in the enquiry proceedings. Even though the petitioner submitted
written request, the request letter was also not taken by the enquiry Officer and not considered. The enquiry Officer has
not examined the officers who investigated the case and also not examined the complainant or his witness who said to
have given statements on 27.09.2019. No opportunity was given to cross- examine them and the Vigilance officer had
approached, after one year of the alleged complaint by Ramineni Ramaswamy. During the enquiry, the petitioner
categorically submitted that he did not take any amount from any one including the alleged complainant. But,
surprisingly enquiry officer held the charge as proved and basing on such perverse findings of the enquiry officer, the
Respondent No.1 imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The action of the respondent No.1 in
dismissing the petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
2(e). Further, the petitioner is the sole breadwinner in his family and as a result of his dismissal, his whole family
rendered without any livelihood. The punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate
to the charges alleged and he has no other employment or any other source of livelihood. He and his family members
have become burden to one and all, on account of his dismissal from service. As such, the petitioner craves indulgence of
this Court to modify the punishment of dismissal from service to that of any other lesser punishment, so as to survive
himself and his family members. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the dismissal order dt.27.09.2021 issued by the
Respondent No.1 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all other consequential benefits,
such as continuity of service, back wages and other attended benefits.
3. On the other side, the Respondents‘/Company have submitted rejoinder by admitting the employment of the
Petitioner/Workman with the Respondents‘/Company and inter-alia contended that the Respondents‘/Company is a
Government Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 for carrying out the business of
winning and selling the coal. Since the coal mining industry is a central subject, the Appropriate Government for this
Respondents/Management is Central Government. The Central Government established an Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29.12.2000 for adjudication of industrial disputes and the petitioner ought to have
approached said tribunal for the redressal of grievance, if any. But, petitioner conveniently avoided filing his petition
before the Tribunal established by the Central Government for the reasons best known to him. Hence, the petition is not
maintainable under law and same may be dismissed on this ground alone. The maintainability of the dispute raised by the
Petitioner before this Court may be decided as preliminary issue before proceeding with the trial.
3(a). The Respondent Company without prejudice to its rights in respect of the above preliminary objection submits that
this is a case of corruption, obtaining illegal gratification and cheating other employees, which is a grave misconduct
under Company Standing Orders. The petitioner having voluntarily admitted his guilt, the Respondent Company has
rightly dismissed the petitioner from services, after conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Law and the
I.D is liable to be dismissed in limini. Petitioner was initially appointed as Coal Filler on 09.01.1989 and he worked as
Coal Cutter. He is a dishonest person who played fraud and collected money for getting the workmen medically
invalidated and a chronic absentee too. With regard to dishonesty and fraud and absenteeism, he was issued the (5)
Charge Sheets. But, he failed to change his attitude and committed misconduct under Company's Standing Order Nos.
25.1, 25.23 and 25.039 for collecting a sum of Rs.4 lakhs on the guise of mediation in the medical invalidation process
and on absenteeism. The petitioner having continued his corruption, fraud and dishonesty, he was issued with charge
sheet No.SRP/RKNT/RK007/20/3844, dt.8/15.10.2020 and the relevant clause of standing orders reads as under:
25.1:
Theft, Fraud or Dishonestly in Connection with employers, business and Property.
25.23:
Any willful and deliberate act which is subversive of Discipline or which may be detrimental to the
interest of the Company.
25.39:
Abetment of any of misconduct.
3(b). The Respondent Company has issued enquiry notice dated: 10.02.2021 informing him to attend the enquiry on
18.02.2021 at 4.00pm. The petitioner has attended the enquiry and admitted his guilt vide explanation dt.18.02.2021 and
it is evident that he has taken bribe of 4.00 Lakhs. In his deposition before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner himself
admitted the charges leveled against him in the charge sheet and admitted his mistake. The enquiry was conducted
according to the principles of natural justice on 18/02/2021, 24/02/2021, 05/03/2021 & 10/03/2021. The Enquiry Officer
gave the petitioner opportunity to adduce evidence and to produce documentary evidence, witnesses in support of his
6194
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claim, but the petitioner failed to submit documentary evidence and not produced witness and admitted that he is guilty
of the charges. The copies of enquiry report, proceedings of enquiry were sent to the petitioner vide show cause Lr.
dt.01.04.2021, giving another opportunity to the petitioner to submit his representation within seven days from the
receipt of the report. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 03.04.2021 admitting his guilt. Accordingly the
competent authority after going through the evidence on record, statement/application admitting guilt the past record of
petitioner, found that the petitioner was issued charge sheet previously on 23.08.2019 for the misconduct for collection
of amounts on the guise of mediating in Corporate Medical Board (CMB) and as the charges were proved fully and
finding no extenuating circumstances to take a lenient view, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of dismissal from
service w.e.f., 28.09.2021 vide Proc. dt.27.09.2021.
3(c). The petitioner admitted his guilt on the charges of taking 4.00 Lakhs from Sri. Ramineni Ramaswamy, on the
pretext of mediating in the Corporate Medical Board. The same is evident from the letter dt.11.09.2020 wherein the
petitioner voluntarily stated and accepted his guilt and affixed his signatures before A.Kumar and Vigilance Officer. The
enquiry was conducted duly following all the principles of natural justice as stated supra and the Petitioner was given full
and fair opportunity to defend his case. In his deposition before the Enquiry Officer also, the petitioner himself admitted
the charges leveled against him in the charge sheet and admitted his mistake. The enquiry officer gave him opportunity
to adduce evidence and to produce documentary evidence, witnesses in support of his claim, but the petitioner did not
submit documentary evidence and nor produced any witness nor choose to cross examine the witness and admitted his
guilt. The averment of the petitioner that the action of the first respondent in dismissing the petitioner from service in
wholly illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice is false and denied. Further the averment that the appeal
was filed against the dismissal order before the Director (PA&W)-cum-appellate authority is false and denied. He failed
to approach the Appellate Authority within the stipulated period as per the company's standing orders and after lapse of
3.5 years, he has knocked the doors of the Hon'ble Court and approached the Hon'ble Court by suppressing all material
facts with malafide intention to obtain favourable orders. Therefore, the respondent prayed to dismiss the petition
without granting any relief to the petitioner.
4. In support of the claim of the Petitioner/Workman, he got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-6 and on the other side for the
Respondents/Company Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-13 were marked.
5. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner/Workman as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents/Company,
besides written arguments on both sides.
6. Now the points for consideration are:-
1.
Whether this Industrial Dispute is maintainable before this Tribunal or not?
2.
Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents is held valid or not?
3.
Whether the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved basing on evidence or not? If so, whether the
punishment is disproportionate or not?
4.
Whether the dismissal order dt.27.09.2021 is liable to be set aside, if so, the petitioner is entitled to
reinstatement with continuity of service with all attendant benefits and full back wages?
5.
If not to what relief is the worker entitled to?
7. From the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman and Respondents‘ Company, these are the admitted facts that the
petitioner worked as Coal Cutter in the respondent‘s company and he was dismissed from service. Now coming to the
documentary evidence on both sides, on behalf of the Respondents‘/Company, Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-13 were marked,
wherein, Ex.M-1 is charge sheet issued to petitioner for mediating in medical invalidation and Ex.M-2 is enquiry notice
served and duly signed by the petitioner. Ex.M-3 is enquiry proceedings for the charge sheet dt:08/15.10.2020 and Ex.M-
4 is enquiry Report. Ex.M-5 is Show Cause Notice along with enquiry report addressed to petitioner. Ex.M-6 is reply
representation from the petitioner to enquiry proceedings. Ex.M-7 is dismissal order of petitioner and Ex.M-8 is Name
Removal letter of the petitioner. Ex.M-9 is charge sheet issued to petitioner for absenteeism in 2019 and Office Order of
punishment of suspension of 10 days from duty against petitioner. Ex.M-10 is charge sheet issued to petitioner for
mediating in medical invalidation and Office Order of punishment of reversion of lower stage by reducing three (3)
increments against petitioner. Ex.M-11 is charge sheet issued to petitioner for absenteeism in 2016 and Office Order of
punishment
of
reversion
of
lower
stage
by
reducing
two(2)
increments
against
petitioner.
Ex.M-12 is charge sheet issued to petitioner for absenteeism in 2015 and Office Order of punishment of reversion of
lower stage by reducing two (2) increments against petitioner. Ex.M-13 is statement of the petitioner before
the G.M, Vigilance.
7(a). On the other side, the petitioner/workman has got marked Ex.W-1 to Ex.W-6 on his behalf, wherein, Ex.W-1 is
Dismissal order issued by R-1. Ex.W-2 is Enquiry Proceedings and Ex.W-3 is Postal receipt. Ex.W-4 is Show cause
notice. Ex.W-5 is Postal acknowledgement and Ex.W-6 is O/c of Demand notice. The above documents of both sides are
not in much dispute by either side.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6195
8. Here, the learned standing counsel for the respondents‘-company has strenuously put forth and set forth that since the
coal mining industry is a central subject, the Appropriate Government, which established Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal at Hyderabad for adjudication of Industrial Disputes and the Petitioner ought to have approached the said
Tribunal for the redressal of grievance, if any. But, the Petitioner conveniently avoided filing her petition before the
Tribunal established by the Central Government and hence this I.D is not maintainable before this Tribunal and and the
same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
8(a). The learned standing counsel for the respondent‘s-company further strenuously put forth and set forth that this is a
case of corruption, obtaining illegal gratification and cheating other employees, which is a grave misconduct under
Company Standing Orders. The petitioner having voluntarily admitted his guilt, the Respondent Company has rightly
dismissed the petitioner from services, after conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Law and the I.D is
liable to be dismissed in limini. The petitioner is a dishonest person who played fraud and collected money for getting
the workmen medically invalidated and a chronic absentee. With regard to dishonesty and fraud and absenteeism, he was
issued the (5) Charge Sheets, but he failed to change his attitude and committed misconduct under Company's Standing
Order Nos. 25.1, 25.23 and 25.039 for collecting a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on the guise of mediation in the medical
invalidation process and on absenteeism. The petitioner having continued his corruption, fraud and dishonesty, he was
issued with charge sheet dt.15.10.2020. The petitioner attended the enquiry and admitted his guilt t that he has taken
bribe of 4.00 Lakhs. The copies of enquiry report, proceedings of enquiry were sent to the petitioner vide show cause Lr.
dt.01.04.2021, to which submitted his explanation on 03.04.2021 admitting his guilt. Further, he was issued charge sheet
previously on 23.08.2019 for the misconduct for collection of amounts on the guise of mediating in Corporate Medical
Board. Hence, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f., 28.09.2021 vide Proc. dt.27.09.2021. Therefore, he
prayed to dismiss the petition, without granting any relief to the petitioner.
9. Per contra, on the point of jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has put forth and set forth that as per the
Division Bench Judgment of the Hon‘ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa Vs.
Cotton Corporation of India, this Tribunal has jurisdiction over Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., to entertain the
Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner though the appropriate Govt. is Central Govt., The petitioner need not raise the
Industrial Dispute compulsorily before the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad alone, as contended by the
respondents‘ company. Hence, this I.D petition filed by the petitioner is well maintainable before this Tribunal for
adjudication of the dispute on merits.
9(a). The learned counsel for the Petitioner further put forth and set forth that the Petitioner is an illiterate and except
signing, he is unable to read and write. The petitioner has not taken any amount from Sri. Ramineni Ramaswamy and it
seems that to book a case against him, Vigilance Officers have obtained a false complainant to save the officers who
were involved in the Medical Scam. The enquiry was conducted with a biased manner and it is not possible to a common
man to manage the Medical Board for Medical invalidation, without support of either Doctors or Higher Officers. During
the enquiry, the petitioner categorically submitted that he did not take any amount from any one including the alleged
complainant. But, surprisingly enquiry officer held the charges as proved and the Respondent No.1 imposed the extreme
penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner is the sole breadwinner and he has no other source of livelihood the
punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the charges. Further, the petitioner
was born on 12.11.1962 and he already attained superannuation age by 30.11.2023 itself, he prays to set aside the
dismissal order and direct the respondent‘s company to treat the petitioner as if she was retired from service with
continuity of service, together with all attendant benefits and full back wages.
POINT No.1:
10. Here, on the point of territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it is settled Law that as per the Division Bench Judgment
of the Hon‘ble High Court reported in 1997 (III) LLJ (Supp.) 11, Between: U. Chinnappa Vs. Cotton Corporation of
India, this Tribunal has got every jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner/workman who
was an employee of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Even though, the Central Govt. is appropriate Government for
the respondents‘-Company, the petitioner need not compulsorily raise the Industrial Dispute before the Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, as contended by the respondents‘ company; and he can file this I.D. case before this
Tribunal as well. Hence, the contentions of the respondents‘-company on the point of jurisdiction of this Tribunal are not
sustainable under Law. Accordingly, it is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents‘ Singareni
Collieries Company Limited.
POINT No.2:
11. Further, in this matter, initially the petitioner/workman denied the validity and legality of the enquiry report. But on
29.07.2025, the learned counsel for petitioner filed Memo U/Sec. 11-A of I.D.Act by accepting the procedure of
domestic enquiry. Now the next question is whether the misconduct is proved in the facts of the case and the findings are
not perverse. So, this Tribunal is to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion with regard to finding
guilty or not based on evidence. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered.
POINT No.3 & 4:
12. In view of the pleadings of the Petitioner/Workman as well as Respondents/Company as well as in view of the rival
arguments of their respective counsel now this Court will go into the evidence on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was
6196
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dismissed from service by Proc. dt.27.09.2021 for misconduct under Company‘s Standing Order Nos.25.1, 25.23 &
25.39 for collecting Rs.4.00 Lakhs amount on the guise of mediating in the medical invalidation process of Sri Ramineni
Ramaswamy, Trammer. From a perusal of the record, it shows that Charge Sheet dt.08/15.10.2020 was issued to the
petitioner, which is marked as Ex.M-1. It is evident from the charge sheet that the during Vigilance enquiry it was found
that the petitioner collected Rs.4.00 Lakhs money from Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, Trammer of RK-5 Incline in the
guise of mediating for his medical invalidation. Later, he and his relative B.Mallaiah have attended the CMB held from
26.09.2019 to 27.09.2019 at Main Hospital, Kothagudem. He informed to Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, Trammer that his
medical invalidation process was completed and thus, cheated Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, Trammer by taking Rs.4.00
Lakhs amount under the guise of mediating in the medical invalidation process. The petitioner‘s above acts amount to
misconduct under company‘s Standing Order Nos.25.1, 25.23 & 25.39 which reads as follows:
25.1:
Theft, Fraud or Dishonestly in Connection with employers, business and Property.
25.23:
Any willful and deliberate act which is subversive of Discipline or which may be detrimental to the
interest of the Company.
25.39:
Abetment of any of misconduct.
13. The petitioner had acknowledged the charge sheet on 16.10.2020 and the enquiry notice dt.10.02.2021 is marked as
Ex.M-2. The enquiry proceedings are marked as Ex.M-3, wherein the petitioner deposed his statement. He deposed that
he made an agreement with Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, Trammer that she should pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for his
medical invalidation. As a part of agreement, the petitioner took Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of July 2019 and again on
22.09.2019 & 23.09.2019, he has taken balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, in the form of
cash. The petitioner further categorically deposed that:
“Later Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy along with his relative Sri B Mallaiah went to Kothagudem. On 27.09.2019 at
around 02.00PM I made a call to Sri B.Mallaiah and enquired about medical examination pertaining to Sri
Ramineni Ramaswamy. To make this call I have used mobile number 9985675414 which belongs to Smt Gare
Shobhana who is my Daughter-in-law and called Sri B Mallaiah (who accompanied Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy for
medical invalidation at Main Hospital, Kothagudem) to the mobile number 9949271752 and made a call on 27.09
2019 at 02.00P.M. After I have given instructions to Sri B Mallaiah and I told him that he would receive a phone
call from Big doctor. Later I have arranged my younger brother Sri Naresh kumar to make a call to Sri B Mallaiah
posing himself as Singareni Official. I have used Mobile No.9010792220 to speak to Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy. I
admit that I have done all this to make him believe that I only was responsible for his medical unfit. If by any chance
if he is made unfit due to his ill health I wanted to get easy money by telling that I made him unfit. However, I agree
that it is my mistake and I deeply regret for what was happened now I have left all this false means and I regularly
attending for my duties. I have strongly decided not to repeat any such acts in future. I plead the management to
excuse for this time and give me a chance to prove myself. With this I conclude my statement.”
14. Apart from the above, during the course of his cross-examination by the Presenting Officer the petitioner
categorically admitted and answered as under:-
Q.1
Have you understood the contents of the statement explained by E.O. in Telugu?
Ans:
Yes, I understood my statement explained by E.O. in Telugu and I fully accept the same recorded as stated
by me.
Q.
Do you know Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy?
Ans:
Yes, I know Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy.
Q.
Do you have any agreement with Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy on medical invalidation?
Ans:
Yes, we have made an agreement on his medical invalidation.
Q.
How much money did Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy agreed with you regarding medical invalidation?
Ans:
Yes, Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy made an agreement of Rs.4,00,000 (Rupees for Four Lakhs Only)
Q.
Did Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy paid the total amount to you at once?
Ans:
As a part of our agreement I have taken Rs1,00,000(Rupees one Lakh only) in the month of July, 2019,
Again on 22.09.2019 and 23.09.2019 I have taken balance amount of Rs.3, 00,000(Rupees three Lakhs
only) from Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy in the form of cash.
Q.
Have you made any phone call to Sri B. Mallaiah on the date of medical examination?
Ans:
Yes, I made a call and spoke to Sri B. Mallaiah.
Q.
Which mobile phone did you use for the purpose of medical invalidation?
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6197
Ans:
I have used Mobile No.9985675414 which belongs to Smagare Shobhane who is my Daughter-in-law.
Q.
Whom did you arrange to make a phone call posing himself as a Singareni official?
Ans:
I have arranged my younger brother Sri Gare Naresh Kumar to make a call posing himself as Singareni
official.
Q.
Earlier you were guilty in the similar charges in the case of Sri Lankala Lachaiah isn't it?
Ans:
Yes, I was guilty in that case. Company imposed punishment on me.
Q.
Isn't it your serious misconduct repeating the same mistake again?
Ans:
Yes, it is my mistake to repeat the same misconduct, however I realized my mistake and strongly decided to
not to repeat this in future.
Q.
Do you accept that the statement dt.11.09.2020 submitted to vigilance department which were signed by
you?
Ans:
Yes, I accepted that the statement dt.11.09.2020 was signed by me.
Q.
Do you accept the statement while conducted the enquiry on 05.03.2021 by the enquiry officer?
Ans:
Yes, I accepted the statement enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer on 05.03.2021.
Q.
Do you accept the charges mentioned in the charge sheet?
Ans:
Yes, I admit the charges leveled against me. But I pleased the management not to take any drastic steps on
me.
Q.
Do you accept your mistake with freewill?
Ans:
Yes
Hence, it is clearly evident that when the petitioner was cross-examined by Sri Kotte Ramesh, Dy. Manager/Presenting
Officer, wherein, he (petitioner/workman) clearly admitted that he made an agreement with Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy
for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and that he received Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of July 2019 and again on 22.09.2019 &
23.09.2019, he has taken balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, in the form of cash. He
further clearly admitted the charges leveled against him, accepted his mistake with freewill and requested the
management not to take drastic steps on him.
15. Further, a perusal of Ex.M-6 proceedings of enquiry shows that Sri Kotte Ramesh, Dy. Manager/Presenting Officer
was examined by the enquiry officer. He categorically deposed in support of the charges framed against the petitioner
and deposed as under:-
―I am working as Dy. Manager at RKNT Incline since last (02) year. I have been appointed as Presenting Officer
vide Lr. No. SRP/RKNT/R007/20/3969, dt.28.10.2020, to lead the evidence for the charge sheet
No.SRP/RKNT/R007/20/3844, dt.15.10.2020, issued to Sri Gare Prabhakar, Coal Cutter, E.C.No.2838548 of RKNT
Incline. In this connection It is reported by Company Vigilance department that Sri Gare Prabhakar,
E.C.No.2838548, Coal Cutter, RKNT Incline has collected Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs only) money from Sri
Ramineni Ramaswamy, E.C.No. 2609842. Trammer, RK-5 Incline. SRP in the guise of mediating for his medical
invalidation Later Sri Ramineri Ramaswamy accompanied by his relative, Sri B Mallaiah attended the CMB held
from 26.09.2019 to 27.09.2019 at Main Hospital, Kothagudem. Sri Gare Prabhakar arranged a person to make a
phone call on 27.09.2019 by posing himself as an officer to Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy that his medical invalidation
work is completed successfully. Later Sri Gare Prabhakar informed through phone call to Sri Ramineni
Ramaswamy that his medical invalidation process is completed. Thus, Sri Gare Prabhakar cheated Sri Ramineni
Ramaswamy by taking Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) amount on the guise of mediating in the medical
invalidation process Ramineni Ramaswamy.
During enquiry by vigilance department the C.S.E admitted that he has made an agreement with Sri Ramineni
Ramaswamy for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) amount for getting medical unfit. The C.S.E has also
admitted that during July, 2019 he has received for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) amounts as first
installment from Ramineni Ramaswamy for getting unfit in medical board. The CSE has also admitted that on 22.09
2019 and 23.09.2019 he has received 3,00,000(Rupees three lakhs onlyj amount in the form of cash. The C.S.E
further admitted that he has used mobile Number 9985675414 which belongs to his daughter in law Smt Gare
Shobhana and called Sri B Mallaiah (who) accompanied Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy for medical invalidation at
Main hospital, Nothagudem) to the mobile number 9949271752 and made a call on 27.09.2019 at 02.00P.M and
gave instructions as if he has arranged everything for medical unfit. Later he informed that he would receive a call
from big doctor on medical unfit. He arranged his younger brother Sri Gare Naresh Kumar to act as a Singareni
officer and made him call from the mobile number 010792220 to speak to Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, he spoke to
6198
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sri Ramineni Ramaswaly posing himself as Singareni official. He admitted that he did all this things only to make
Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy believe that he was responsible for medical unfit. By any chance if Sri Ramineni
Ramaswamy was made unfit he wanted to get easy money in the guise mediating for medical invalidation.The above
act of cheating Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy by taking Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) amount on the guise of
mediating in the medical invalidation process of Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy amounts to misconduct under company's
standing orders: C.S.O 25.1: Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with employer's business or property. CSO
25.23: Any willful and deliberate act which is subversive of discipline or which may be detrimental to the interest of
the company. C.S.O 25.39: Abetment of any of misconduct.”
16. Apart from the above, the Enquiry Report dt.20.03.2021 is marked as Ex.M-4 wherein it shows that the Enquiry
Officer held and concluded that the charges were amply proved against the petitioner basing on the statements and
records produced during enquiry; and the petitioner Gare Prabhakar has cheated Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, Trammer for
an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the guise of mediating for his medical invalidation and hence, the petitioner/charge
sheeted employee is found guilty of misconduct under the Company‘s Standing Order Nos.25.1, 25.23 and 25.39. Hence,
the charges were held proved against the petitioner, basing on record and own admission of the petitioner. Therefore, it
can be said that the respondent‘s-company has no axe to grind against the petitioner. Hence, this Tribunal has no
hesitation to hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner/ workman are proved and misconduct of the workman is
established basing on the evidence and the findings of enquiry officer are not perverse.
17. Now the question is whether the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate or not?
17(a). It is settled law that the object of I.D. Act is to give succor to weaker sections of the society and it is a social
welfare legislation. Here, there is no “Plumb-line Precision” for deciding the proportionality of punishment, which
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is empowered to exercise
discretionary powers Under Sec.11-A of Industrial Disputes Act for judicious adjudication of the industrial disputes.
Several factors like nature of duty, past service and plea of petitioner/workman and the punishment must be
commensurate with the gravity of charges against the petitioner/ workman etc., by considering the relevant factors and
mitigating circumstances of each case are to be taken into consideration so as to mould the relief appropriately and
reduce the punishment imposed on the workman.
18. Here, the contention of the Petitioner is that he was appointed in the year 1989 and worked for more than (32) years
without any remarks. Further, the respondents‘ company failed to initiate any criminal proceedings by lodging police
complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner hails from a very poor family, he has got no other livelihood and facing
untold financial problems, already attained superannuation age as he is aged about 63 years and prayed to consider the
case U/Sec.11-A of I.D. Act. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the dismissal order and direct the
respondents‘ company to pay full back wages and all other consequential benefits, as if the petitioner/workman retired
from service on attaining the superannuation age on 30.11.2023.
19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents‘ company strenuously contended that filing a criminal case
against the petitioner is not mandatory and the respondents‘ company can initiate disciplinary proceedings. Further in the
enquiry statement, the petitioner/Sri Gare Prabhakar clearly admitted that he has done all misconduct of taking bribe of
Rs.4,00,000/- from Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy for his illegal gain of easy money. Further, the petitioner also admitted
that if by any chance, if Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy is made unfit due to his ill-health, he wanted to get easy money by
telling that petitioner made him unfit. The enquiry statement of the petitioner/Sri Gare Prabhakar clearly indicates that he
voluntarily with full consciousness has admitted his guilt i.e., collecting money from Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy in the
mediating the process of Corporate Medical Board (CMB), which is a serious misconduct and the petitioner deserves no
sympathy. Further, after his dismissal from service on 27.09.2021, the petitioner waited for more than 3 ½ years and only
attaining the superannuation age, he filed the I.D petitioner before this court in the month of August 2024. The relief of
reinstatement into service has already become infructuous and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition without
granting any relief to the petitioner.
20. In view of the above rival contentions of both sides and the peculiar facts and circumstances this court once again
gone through the entire record. Here, it is clearly evident from the enquiry proceedings that the Presenting Officer has
categorically deposed in support of the charges framed against the petitioner and produced the following documents,
before the Enquiry Officer:
1.
Copy of GM(Vigilance) vide Lr.No.CRP/VIG/ 2020/ F(CMB)/429, Dt:22.09.2020.
2.
Copy of GM(Personnel)IR RC & PM vide Lr.No.CRP/PER/IR/D/96/1197,Dt:29.09.2020.
3.
Copy of Charge sheet vide Ref.No.SRP/RKNT/ R007/20/3844,Dt: 15.10.2020.
4.
Copy of Written explanation, Dt: 18.02.2021.
5.
Copy of Enquiry notice vide Ref. No. SRP/RKNT/ R007A/21/487, Dt:10.02.2021.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6199
6.
Copy of appointment of P.O vide Ref.No.SRP/ RKNT/R007/20/3969, Dt: 28.10.2020.
7.
Copy of appointment of E.O vide Ref. No. SRP/PER /13-002/20/6453, Dt: 22.10.2020.
8.
Copy of statement of Sri Gare Prabhakar, Dt:11.09.2020.
9.
Copy of statement of Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, Dt:27.09.2019.
10.
Copy of statement of Sri B Mallaiah, Dt: 27.09.2019.
11.
Copy of photo of Sri Gare Prabhakar certified by Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy.
21. Further, the Enquiry Officer clearly held and concluded that the charges were amply proved against the petitioner
basing on the statements and records produced during enquiry. The Enquiry Officer further categorically held that the
petitioner Gare Prabhakar has cheated Sri Ramineni Ramaswamy, Trammer for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the guise
of mediating for his medical invalidation and hence, the petitioner/charge sheeted employee is found guilty of
misconduct under the Company‘s Standing Order Nos.25.1, 25.23 and 25.39. Hence, the charges were held proved
against the petitioner, basing on record and own admission of the petitioner. Here, it is settled law that filing criminal
case is not a prerequisite for initiating disciplinary proceedings, and these two processes can occur simultaneously or
independently.
22. Apart from the above, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide Proc.dt.27.09.2021 which is marked as Ex.W-1
and Ex.M-7. Here, it is not dispute that he was born on 12.11.1962 and attained (61) years superannuation age by
30.11.2023 and this I.D. petition was filed before this Tribunal on 22.08.2024 seeking the relief of reinstatement into
service with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential attendant benefits. Thus, even prior to filing
this I.D, the petitioner already attained the superannuation age of 61 years and the relief of reinstatement into service has
become infructuous. Further, is clearly evident from the record that the petitioner/workman himself admitted that he is
guilty of the charges framed against him. This is a case of moral turpitude and the petitioner/workman being involved in
fraud and corruption, he is guilty of grave misconduct; and hence, does not deserve any sympathetic consideration.
Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there
are no mitigating circumstances which require any reduction of punishment imposed by the Respondent No.1.
Consequently, petitioner/workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the Point No.3 & 4 are answered against the
petitioner/workman and in favour of the respondents/ Company. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled
to his terminal benefits from the respondents‘ company as per his eligibility, if not already paid.
23. IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to his terminal
benefits from the respondents‘ company as per his eligibility, if not already paid. Copy of the Award be sent to the
appropriate Government for publication. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 06th day
of August, 2025.
Dr.T.SRINIVASA RAO, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR WORKMAN:-
FOR MANAGEMENT:-
-Nil-
-Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR WORKMAN:-
Ex.W-1
Dt.
27.09.2021
Dismissal order issued by R-1.
Ex.W-2
Dt.
10.03.2021
Enquiry Proceedings
Ex.W-3
Dt.
--
Postal receipt
Ex.W-4
Dt.
01.04.2021
Show cause notice
Ex.W-5
Dt.
04.09.2024
Postal acknowledgement
Ex.W-6
Dt.
31.09.2024
O/c of Demand notice.
6200
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
FOR MANAGEMENT:-
Ex.M-1
Dt.
08/
15.10.2020
Original/ Attested Copy of charge sheet for mediating in medical
invalidation issued to petitioner vide Lr.No. SRP/ RKNT/RK007/
20/3844
Ex.M-2
Dt.
10.02.2021
Original/Attested copy of enquiry notice served and duly signed by the
petitioner vide Lr.No. SRP/RKNT/R007A/21/487.
Ex.M-3
Dt.
18.02.2021
24.02.2021
05.03.2021
&
10.03.2021
Original/ Attested copies of enquiry proceedings for the charge sheet
dt:08/15.10.2020.
Ex.M-4
Dt.
20.03.2021
Original/ Attested copies of enquiry Report
Ex.M-5
Dt.
01.04.2021
Original/Attested copy of Show Cause Notice along with enquiry
report addressed to petitioner vide Lr.No.SRP/RKNT/R0072/21/1330.
Ex.M-6
Dt.
03.04.2021
Original/ Attested copy of reply representation from the petitioner to
enquiry proceedings.
Ex.M-7
Dt.
27.09.2021
Original/ Attested copy of dismissal order of petitioner vide Lr. No.
SRP/ PER/13.008/6441.
Ex.M-8
Dt.
11.11.2021
Original/ Attested Copy of Name Removal letter of the petitioner vide
Lr.No. SRP/RKNT/WO/2021/4848.
Ex.M-9
Dt.
20.02.2020
&
05/
10.12.2020
Original/ Attested Copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner for
absenteeism in 2019 vide Lr.No. SRP/RKNT/R007A/ 20/2178 &
Office Order of punishment of suspension of 10 days from duty against
petitioner vide SRP/RKNT/ R007A/20/434.
Ex.M-10
Dt.
20.08.2019
&
20.07.2020
Original/ Attested Copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner for
mediating in medical invalidation vide Lr.No. SRP/ RKNT/ R007A/19/
3085 & Office Order of punishment of reversion of lower stage by
reducing three(3) increments against petitioner vide SRP/PER/13.008/
4414
Ex.M-11
Dt.
03.02.2017
&
09.11.2018
Original/Attested Copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner for
absenteeism in 2016 vide Lr.No. SRP/RKNT/R007A/ 17/591 & Office
Order of punishment of reversion of lower stage by reducing two(2)
increments against petitioner vide SRP/PER/13.008/7560
Ex.M-12
Dt.
09.02.2016
&
10.09.2016
Original/Attested Copy of charge sheet issued to petitioner for
absenteeism in 2015 vide Lr.No. SRP/RKNT/R007A/16/ 670 & Office
Order of punishment of reversion of lower stage by reducing two(2)
increments against petitioner vide SRP/PER/13.008/5026
Ex.M-13
Dt.
11.09.2020
Original/ Attested copy of statement of the Petitioner before the GM,
Vigilance.
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1679.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार भारत ृेरोजलयम कॉृोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससड के. आर. बेदमूथा एंड टेक्नो एसोजसएट्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों
और श्री दयाराम के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोटा, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-(केन्द्रीय)
05/2007 (सीआईएस-107/2014)) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को
सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 15.09.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं
-30012/70/2006-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6201
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1679.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central) 05/2007 (CIS-107/2014)) of the Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; M/s K.R. Bedamutha & Techno Associates and Shri Dayaram
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.09.2025.
[No. L-30012/70/2006-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½& 05@2007¼lhvkbZ,l&107@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060002192007½
fnukad LFkkfir% 06-07-2007
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz-
,y&30012@70@2006 vkbZvkj¼,e½ fn-14-05-2007
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
n;kjke iq= Jh tokgj yky] }kjk la;qDr egkea=h fgUn
etnwj lHkk] caxkyh dkWyksuh] Nkouh] dksVk ¼jkt-½
--------izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
1- The Territory Manager (LPG) Bharat Petroleum Corpn., Ltd. Bharat GasPlant Vill-Lavera
Nasirabad, Ajmer
2- The Manaer M/s. K.R. Bedmutha & Techno Associates, 10 Poornima Mahatma Phoole Road,
Mulund/East Mumbai-400081
--------vizkFkhZxk@ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp
vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh vkj-ds xqIrk o Jh ds-ds- luk<~;
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fn-% 27-01-2025
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 14-05-2007 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k
gS%&
^^Whether Sh. Dayaram S/o. Sh. jawaharlal has worked with M/s. K.R. Bedmootha & Associates, Mumbai-81
contractor of BPCL, Talwandi from 22-02-2005 to 16-12-2005 and has thus completed more than 240 days / If
yes whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 16-12-2005 is legal
and justified ? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to ?**
6202
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2&mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk
mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks izca/kd Hkkjr isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku
fy- izkstsDV yhVj] ch&105] bUnz fogkj] ryo.Mh] dksVk ftUgsa bl fookn esa vkxs pydj fu;kstd 'kCn ls lacskf/kr fd;k tkosxk us fnukad 22-02-2005
ls ekaxfy;k ikbZi ykbZu foLrkj ifj;kstuk ij pSu eSu dk dk;Z djus gsrq lsok esa 3200@& :i;s izfr ekg ij fu;ksftr fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls
gVkus ds ckn fu;kstd us crk;k fd izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh izca/kd] ds-vkj- csMewFkk ,.M VsDuh- ,lksfl,V~l eqEcbZ dkWUVªsDVj ds ek/;e ls yxk;k Fkk] ftUgsa
izkFkhZ ugha tkurk gSA fu;kstd ds v/khuLFk bUpktZ us izkFkhZ dks vpkud fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ds fnukad 16-12-2005 ls ukSdjh
ls gVk fn;k gS tks voS/k gSA izkFkhZ us fnukad 19-12-2005 dks jftLVMZ ,-Mh- Mkd }kjk izkFkZuk i= fu;kstd dks izsf"kr dj i= izkIr gksus ds 3 fnu esa
M~;wVh ij ysus dh ekax dh vU;Fkk vof/k lekIr gksus ij l{ke dkuwuksa ds vUrxZr dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ckcr lwfpr fd;kA fu;sktd dks ;g i= izkIr
gks pqdk gSA izkFkhZ dk fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½ ds vUrxZr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds ;gka ij
fnukad 22-02-2005 ls fnukad 15-12-2005 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gS rFkk bl vof/k esa 240 fnu ls dkQH vf/kd le; rd dk;Z dj fy;k gSA izkFkhZ ls
dk;Z fu;sktd ds v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk gh fy;k gS rFkk osru Hkh fu;kstd us gh fn;k gSA fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,Q ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ,d ekg uksfVl ugha fn;k gS vkSj u blds cnys esa ,d ekg ds vfxze osru
dk gh Hkqxrku fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ls iwoZ NaVuh dk eqvkotk Hkh ugha fn;k gS vkSj u vkWQj gh fd;k
gSA fu;sktd us izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls fudkys tkus ls iwoZ jktLFkku vkS|ksfxd fookn :Yl] 1957 ds fu;e&77 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ofj"Brk lwph dk
izdk'ku Hkh ugha fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;s tkus ds le; izkFkhZ ls dfu"B xqM~Mw fu;kstd ds fu;kstu esa ekStwn FkkA bl izdkj fu;sktd us
izkFkhZ dks ykLV de QLVZ xks ds fl)kar dh vogsyuk djds ukSdjh ls fudkyk gS tks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th ds izko/kuksa dh Hkh vogsyuk gSA
fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks lsok ls gVk;s tkus ds ckn izkFkhZ ds LFkku ij dUgS;kyky es?koky dks lsok esa fu;ksftr dj fy;k gS bls fu;ksftr fd;s tkus ls
iwoZ izkFkhZ dks fu;kstu gsrq dksbZ volj iznku ugha fd;k gSA tks vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 dh /kkjk 25 ,p ds lkFk ifBr jktLFkku vkS|ksfxd
fookn :Yl] 1957 ds :y 78 ds izko/kkuksa dh Hkh vogsyuk gS rFkk fu;kstd dk ;g d`R; vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA var ea izkFkZuk
dh fd fu;kstd ds ;gka ij fiNys laiw.kz oru lfgr e; leLr fiNys ykHkksa ds lsok ij cgky djk;k tkosA
3&vizkFkhZ dze&1 dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ dze&1 }kjk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dks fnukad 03-11-2004
dks ,d dkWUVªsDV eqEcbZ euekM ekaxfy;k ikbZiykbZu dh foLrkj ifj;sktuk ds laca/k esa vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij e/;izns'k] jktLFkku] mRrjizns'k] gfj;k.kk o
fnYyh esa Vs.Mj fnukad 08-10-2004 ds vuqlkj lsokfuo`Rr jsosU;w LVkWQ miyc/k djkus gsrq fn;k x;k Fkk ftldh vof/k ,d o"kZ FkhA ikbZi ykbZu ds
foLrkj dh ifj;sktuk dk dk;Z iw.kZr% vLFkkbZ izd`fr dk FkkA izkFkhZ dks bl lanHkZ esa izfri{kh la[;k 2 }kjk fu;skftr fd;k x;k FkkA izfri{kh dze&2 }kjk
;g lsok vDVwcj 2004 ls uoEcj 2005 rd dh vof/k ds fy;s miyC/k djkbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj mlds i'pkr ;g dk;Z lekIr gks x;k vkSj izfri{kh dze&2
ds fdlh Hkh deZpkjh dh vko';drk ugha jgh gSA vr% izLrqr izdj.k vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e ds varxZr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrkA izfri{kh
la[;k 1 ,oa izkFkhZ ds e/; fdlh Hkh izdkj ds fu;kstd&fu;ksftr ds laca/k ugha jgs vkSj og izfri{kh la[;k 1 dk deZpkjh ugha FkkA izkFkhZ us lgk;d Je
vk;qDr ds le{k ifjokn Hkh izfri{kh dze&2 ds fo:) fnukad 03-02-2006 dks izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftlesa izfri{kh la[;k 1 dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k Fkk
rFkk fnukad 03-11-2006 dks izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr le>kSrk okrkZ ds nkSjku izLrqr fjtksb.Mj esas Hkh mRrjnkrk izfri{kh la[;k 1 dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k vksj
le>kSrk okrkZ dh dk;Zokgh esa Hkh mRrjnkrk izfri{kh la[;k 1 ds fo:) dksbZ dsl ugha gS vc ek= nqHkkoZuko'k cuk;k x;k gSA izfri{kh la[;k 1 }kjk
lafonk fnukad 03-11-2004 lifBr Vs.Mj uksfVl fnukad 08-10-2004 }kjk cacbZ ekaxfy;k ikbZi ykbZu ds fi;kyk@fctoklu foLrkj dk;Z ds laca/k esa
vLFkkbZ lsok fuo`Rr deZpkjh o lgk;d miyC/k djus dk dk;Z fn;k x;k Fkk ftldh vof/k ,d o"kZ FkhA og dk;Z uoEcj 2005 esa lekIr gks x;kA
izkFkhZ dks izfri{kh la[;k 1 }kjk blh laca/k esa j[kk x;k FkkA izkFkhZ us izfri{kh la[;k 1 ds i;Zos{k.k ,oa fu;a=.k esa dHkh dk;Z ugha fd;kA mlds osru dk
Hkqxrku Hkh izfri{kh la[;k 2 }kjk fd;k x;k tks izfri{kh dze&2 dk nkf;Ro FkkA var esa izkFkZuk dh fd izkFkhZ dk LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse izkFkZuki= lO;;
[kkfjt fd;k tkosA
vizkFkhZ dze&2 dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd vizkFkhZ dze&1 }kjk izfri{kh la[;k 2 dks fnukad 03-11-
2004 dks ,d dkWUVªsDV eqEcbZ euekM ekaxfy;k ikbZiykbZu dh foLrkj ifj;sktuk ds laca/k esa vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij e/;izns'k] jktLFkku] mRrjizns'k] gfj;k.kk
o fnYyh esa Vs.Mj fnukad 08-10-2004 ds vuqlkj lsokfuo`Rr jsosU;w LVkWQ miyc/k djkus gsrq fn;k x;k Fkk ftldh vof/k ,d o"kZ FkhA vuqca/k uoEcj
2005 esa lekIr gks pqdk gSA izkFkhZ dks bl lanHkZ esa fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA izfri{kh la[;k 2 }kjk ;g lsok vDVwcj 2004 ls uoEcj 2005 dh vof/k ds
fy;s miyC/k djkbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj mlds i'pkr ;g dk;Z lekIr gks x;k vkSj izfri{kh la[;k 2 dks fdlh Hkh deZpkjh dh vko';drk ugha jghA izkFkhZ us
fu;sktu vof/k esa 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd dk;Z ugha fd;kA izkFkhZ us izfri{kh la[;k 2 ds i;Zos{k.k ,oa fu;a=.k esa gh dk;Z fd;k Fkk mlds osru dk
Hkqxrku izfri{kh la[;k 2 }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dk fu;sktu vLFkkbZ fu;kstu vof/k ds lekIr gksus ij Lor% lekIr gks x;kA izkFkhz mijksDr of.kZr
lafonk dk;z dh lekfIr ds i'pkr fuf'pr gh ykHkizn fu;kstu esa fu;ksftr jgk gSA var esa izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu
fd;k x;kA
4& lk{; esa Lo;a izkFkhZ n;kjke o vizkFkhZx.k lk{kh euksgj jkepUnz eqnyh;kj ,oa lat; xqIrk ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls ijLij ftjg dh x;hA
mHk;i{k dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA
5&mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] tks eq[;r% mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls viuh
cgl esa eq[; :i ls ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dkWUVªsDVj ds ek/;e ls vizkFkhZ la;k 1 fu;kstd ds ;gka fnukad 22-02-2005 ls pSuesu ds
dk;Z gsrq fu;ksftr jgkA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 16-12-2005 ls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k x;k gS tcfd izkFkhZ }kjk fu;kstd ds ;gka fnukad 22-02-2005 ls
fnukad 15-12-2005 rd 240 fnol ls vf/kd vof/k rd dk;Z fd;k x;k gSA blds foijhr vizkFkhZi{k dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ crkSj vuqca/k vizkFkhZ
la[;k 2 ds ek/;e ls vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds dk;Z gsrq fu;ksftr jgk gS ftls vuqca/k dh vof/k lekIr gksus ij gVk fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ;gka
lafonkRed Jfed ds :i esa fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, fnukad 16-12-2005 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gS]
izkFkhZ dk ;g fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vksvks½¼chch½ ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr ,d lafonkRed lsok lekfIr gS ,oa izkFkhZ dk ;g
izdj.k [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6203
6&gLrxr izdj.k esa tks jsQszal izkIr gqvk gS] mlesa lZoizFke bl fcUnq ds laca/k esa foospu fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd D;k izkFkhZ dh lsokeqfDr vf/kfu;e
dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½ ds vUrxZr ^^NaVuh^^ dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrh gS vFkok mldh fu;qfDr lafonkRed (Contractual) vk/kkj ij ,d fuf'pr vof/k dh
jgus ls mldh lekfIr ij NaVuh ds jgs viokn /kkjk 2¼vksvks½¼chch½ ds rgr vkrh gS\
7&bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a dk 'kiFki= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mlus LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh gS
vkSj ftjg esa dFku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd izn'kZ MCY;w 1 esa esjs }kjk izfri{kh la[;k 2 dks uksfVl Hkstk x;k FkkA eq>s i<+uk ugh vkrk gSA izn'kZ
MCY;w 5 esa lgk;d Je vk;qDr dsUnzh; ds ;gka esjs }kjk izfri{kh 2 ds fo:) gh f'kdk;r dh gks rks eSa i< dj ugh crk ldrk gwaA ;g lgh gS fd
izn'kZ MCY;w 4 lSysjh fLyi fjVk;j O;fDr dh gS ysfdu blls eq>s eryc ugh gSA eq>s irk ugh gS fd izfri{kh 1 }kjk izfri{kh 2 dks eqEcbZ euekM+
ekaxyh;k ikbZiykbZu dh foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds lEcU/k esa vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij fjVk;j jsosU;w LVkWQ miyC/k djokus gsrq Bsdk fn;k gksA ;g lgh gS fd esjs
}kjk tks uksfVl fn;s x;s gS vkSj f'kdk;r dh xbZ gS og izfri{kh 2 ds fo:) dh xbZ gS] izfri{kh 1 ds fo:) D;ks ugh dh xbZ bldk eq>s irk ugh gSA
;g lgh gS fd i=koyh esa ,slk dksbZ nLrkost miyC/k ugh gS tks ;g crkrk gks eSus fdl le; ls fdl le; rd izfri{kh 2 ds ;gka dk;Z fd;k gSA
vt[kqn dgk fd esjs ikl osru Hkqxrku dh cSad iklcqd vkSj pSd gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd uoEcj 2005 izfri{kh 2 dk dk;Z lekIr gks x;k gksA eq>s
irk ugh gS fd izfri{kh uEcj 2 dk dkWUVªsDV orZeku esa gS ;k ugh] eSa rks blfy, dg jgk gwa fd eSa tc dke djrk Fkk ml le; dke djus okys vkt
Hkh dke dj jgs gSA ;g eq>s irk ugh gS fd oks fdlds vUrxZr dke dj jgs gSA vt[kqn dgk fd ch-ih-lh-,y ds vUrxZr dke dj jgs gSA ;g lgh gS
fd i=koyh esa ,slk dksbZ nLrkost ugh gS fd eq>s izfri{kh 1 }kjk dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izfri{kh 2 dk dk;Z lekIr gks x;k gks
rks esjk dk;Z Hkh lekIr gks x;k gks cfYd esjs dks ukSdjh ls gVk;k x;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus 240 fnu dke ugh fd;k gksA vt[kqn dgk fd
eSus fnukad 22-02-2005 ls fnukad 15-12-2005 rd fujUrj dk;Z fd;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd izLrqr izdj.k dk jsQjsUl Hkh izfri{kh 2 ds fo:) gh vk;k
FkkA
8& lk{; esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 dh vksj ls lat; xqIrk dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mUgksaus tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh
iqujko`fRr dh gS ,oa ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd Vs.Mj nsus dh foKfIr fudky gS tks Vs.Mj fudkyus dh foKfIr ,e 2 gSA mls
irk ugha gS fd Vs.Mj ds fy, fdrus Bsdsnkj vk, FksA Bsds laca/kh Je foHkkx esa jftLVsª’ku dk izek.k i= muds foHkkx esa Fkk ysfdu og i=koyh ij is’k
ugha fd;kA ml le; fdrus Bsdsnkj Bsds ds fy, vk, Fks mls irk ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd izfri{kh la- 2 dks Bsdk fn;k FkkA izfri{kh la- 2 dks Bsds ij
dke djokus dk jftLVsª’ku i=koyh ij is’k ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd ekaxfy;k foLrkj ;kstuk dk dk;Z pyk FkkA mDr dk;Z fnukad 22-02-2005 ls 15-
12-2005 rd pyk FkkA mls irk ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dks dc yxk Fkk ,oa dc gVk;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd og Bsdsnkj dk deZpkjh Fkk] izkFkhZ ls mudk dksbZ
ysuk nsuk ugha FkkA ;g lgh gS fd tks orZeku esa tks ikbZiykbZu gS mldh ns[kjs[k ds fy, flD;ksfjVh xkMZ oxSjg j[ks tkrs gS oks Hkh Bsdsnkj }kjk gh
j[ks tkrs gSA ekaxfy;k ikbZiykbZu dh deh’kuhax 2007 ds vklikl gqbZ Fkh blfy, bl ij flD;ksfjVh xkMZ o”kZ 2007 ds ckn gh Bsdsnkj }kjk fu;qDr
djok, x, FksA fn- 22-02-2005 ls 15-12-2005 rd gktjh Bsdsnkj ds ;gka gktjh yxrh Fkh ftldh mUgsa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS rFkk mudk mlls dksbZ
ysuk nsuk ugha gSA ;g xyr gS fd 22-02-2005 ls 15-12-2005 rd dh vof/k dh gktjh dk fooj.k mUgsa Hksth tkrh gksA ;g eSuikoj dkWUVsDV uk gksdj
lfoZl dkWUVsDV Fkk blfy, Bsdsnkj ds dfeZ;ksa dh mUgsa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gSA fnukad 22-02-2005 ls 15-12-2005 rd vof/k dk Bsdsnkj mUgsas mlds ;gka
dk;Z djus okys fdlh Hkh dehZ dk fooj.k ugha Hkstrk FkkA fnukad 03-11-2004 dks izfri{kh la[;k 2 dks ysVj vkWQ baVsaM fn;k x;k Fkk tks izn’kZ ,e 1
gSA Bsdk lekfIr dh frfFk izn’kZ ,e 1 dh frfFk ls ,d o”kZ dh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ la- 1 us izkFkhZ ls Bsdk lekfIr ds
mijkar dksbZ dk;Z fy;k gks vt[kqn dgk gS fd Bsdk vof/k esa Hkh izkFkhZ ls vizkFkhZ la- 1 ls dksbZ dk;Z ugha fy;k] izkFkhZ ls vizkFkhZ la- 2 us gh dk;Z
djok;k gSA Bsdk uoEcj 2005 dks lekIr gks x;k FkkA eq>s irk ugha gS fd fdl rkjh[k dks Bsdk lekIr gqvkA ;g xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ la- 1 us Jfed
ls 15-12-2005 rd dk;Z fy;k gksA ;g xyr gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dh gktjh vizkFkhZ la- 1 dk LVkQ yxkrk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd Bsdsnkj dks vizkFkhZ la- 1
us fdl le; fdruk Hkqxrku fd;k og mUgksaus i=koyh ij is’k ugha fd;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 Bsdsnkj }kjk vizkFkhZ la- 1 dks fn;k
x;k fcy i=koyh ij is’k ugha fd;k gSA ;g xyr gS fd Jfed us vizkFkhZ 1 o 2 ds le{k yxkrkj 10 ekg dke fd;k gks vkSj mls NaVuh dk eqvkotk
fn, cxSj fudky fn;k gks] dk;Z lekIr gksus ds ckn Jfed dk vizkFkhZ la- 2 ds ikl dksbZ dk;Z ugha FkkA
lk{; esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dh vksj ls euksgj jkepUnzu eqnyh;kj dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mUgksaus tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr
rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh gS ,oa ftjg esa xokg us dFku fd;k gS fd n;kjke us muds ikl fnukad 22-02-2005 ls 15-12-2005 rd fujurj dk;Z fd;k
gSA Hkqxrku izkFkhZ dks okmpj ls fd;k tkrk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd okmpj i=koyh esa is'k ugha gS D;ksafd osru dk fookn gh ugha gSA izn'kZ MCY;w- 4 esa
twu 2005 esa n;kjke dk uke Hkh gSA izn'kZ MCY;w- 1 mUgsa Hkstk gksxk ij mls ;kn ugha gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fnukad 16-12-2005 dks izkFkhZ dks muds
}kjk NaVuh dh x;h gks blfy, eqvkotk nsus dk iz'u gh iSnk ugha gksrk gSA fnlEcj 2005 esa mudk dk;Z lekIr gks x;k FkkA VsaMj mudk 1 o"kZ dk
FkkA muds }kjk VsaMj dh izfr i=koyh esa is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd izfri{kh dze&1 }kjk mUgsa mDr VsaMj iznku fd;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS
fd izkFkhZ dks gVkdj mUgksaus dUgS;kyky es?koky dks dke ij j[k fy;k gksA ;g lgh gs fd muds ikl fdrus deZpkjh dk;Z dj jgs Fks mudh lwph is'k
ugha dh gS ysfdu izkFkhZ us isesaV 'khV is'k dj j[kh gS ftlesa lcds uke gSaA
9&i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds foospu o fo'kys"k.k ls ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a us vius LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse eas ,oa lk{; esa izLrqr 'kiFk i=
esa dFku fd;k gS fd mls vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dkWUVªsDVj ds tfj;s vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ;gka dk;Z djus gsrq fnukad 22-02-2005 dks fu;qDr fd;k Fkk vkSj
vizkFkhZ ds ;gka mlus fnukad 22-02-2005 ls 15-12-2005 rd yxkrkj dk;Z djrs gq, 240 fnol ls vf/kd fnu rd dk;Z fd;k gSA tcfd vizkFkhZx.k
dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds mDr dFkuksa ds laca/k esa ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dks fuf'pr vof/k ds fy, Bsdsnkj vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds ek/;e ls
vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds dk;Z gsrq fu;ksftr fd;k x;k FkkA izkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr lafonkRed rkSj ij gksus ls NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gS] izkFkhZ dk
dsl /kkjk 2 ¼vksvks½¼chch½ ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa izn'kZ MCY;w- 6 vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 }kjk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k
izLrqr tokc esa izkFkhZ dks esu ikoj miyC/k djk;s tkus gsrq vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds fy, vDVwcj 204 ls uoEcj 2005 rd ds fy, lafonk vk/kkj ij fufonk
ds ek/;e ls dk;Zjr gksuk vafdr gSA izkFkhZ }kjk izdj.k esa vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks
lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS mleasa ftjg ds nkSjku izkFkhZ us dFku fd;k gS fd ^^mls irk ugha gS fd izfri{kh la[;k 1 }kjk izfri{kh la[;k 2 dks eqEcbZ
euekM ekaxfy;k ikbZiykbZu dh foLrkj ifj;kstuk ds laca/k esa vLFkkbZ vk/kkj ij fjVk;j jsosU;w LVkWQ miyC/k djokus gsrq Bsdk fn;k gksA ;g lgh gS
fd i=koyh esa ,slk dksbZnLrkost ugha gS fd mls izfri{kh la[;k 1 }kjk dk;Z ij j[kk x;k gksA ;g lgh gS fd izLrqr izdj.k dk jsQzsal izfri{kh la[;k
6204
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2 ds fo:) gh vk;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd mlds }Kjk tks uksfVl fn;s x;s vkSj f'kdk;r dh x;h og izfri{kh la[;k 2 ds fo:) dh xbZ gSA** bl
izdkj izkFkhZ }kjk viuh ekSf[kd lk{; esa Hkh ,sls fdlh Hkh rF;ksa dks izdV ugha fd;k gS tks mldh lafonkRed dk;Z dh izd`fr dks udkjrh gksA tgka rd
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lsysjh ekg twu 2005 dh izfr izLrqr dh x;h gS rFkk bZ ,l vkbZ dk dkMZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] mlesa izkFkhZ ds }kjk vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gka
dk;Zjr gksus dh iqf"V djrh gS] ysfdu mDr nLrkost lk{; ;g lkfcr djus gsrq i;kZIr ugha gS fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZx.k ds ;gka ij fufonk ds rgr dk;Zjr
u gksA izkFkhZ }kjk vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa dksbZ fo'oluh; lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS ftlls mlds dFkuksa dh iqf"V gksrh gks vfirq izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
izLrqr LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse rFkk 'kiFk i= ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ;gka vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds }kjk fufonk ds ek/;e ls lsok,sa
miyC/k djk;s tkus ds laca/k esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ;gka dk;Zjr Fkk vkSj mDr fuf'pr vof/k lekIr gksus ds i'pkr mldk fu;kstu Hkh Lor% gh lekIr
gks x;kA blds vfrfjDr vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vius tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa Li"V :i ls izkFkhZ dh fu;qfDr fuf'pr le;kof/k ds fy, lafonk ds rgr
fd;k tkuk dFku fd;k gSA blds vfrfjDr vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 dh vksj ls mifLFkfr lk{kh us ftjg esa Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd fnlEcj 2005 esa mudk
dk;Z lekIr gks x;k FkkA VsaMj mudk 1 o"kZ dk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dks gVkdj muds }kjk dUgS;kyky es?koky dks dke ij j[k fy;k
gksA** blds vfrfjDr vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ;gka lat; xqIrk us ftjg esa dFku fd;k fd dkWUVªsDV esuikoj u gksdj lfoZl dkWUVªsDV Fkk blfy, Bsdsnkj ds
dfeZ;ksa dh mUgsa dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gSA fnukad 03-11-2004 dks izfri{kh la[;k 2 dks ysVj vkWQ baVsaM fn;k x;k Fkk tks izn'kZ ,e 1 gSA Bsdk lekfIr dh
frfFk izn'kZ 1 dh frFkh ls ,d o"kZ dh FkhA Bsdk uoEcj 2005 dks lekIr gsk x;k FkkA mls irk ugha fd fdl rkjh[k dks Bsdk lekIr gqvkA ;g dguk
xyr gS fd Jfed ls 15-12-2005 rd dk;Z fy;k gks Jfed dk laca/k vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ls Fkk blds ckjs esa mls tkudkjh ugah gSA ** bl izdkj vizkFkhZ
la[;k 1 }kjk gkykafd mDr Bsdk uoEcj 2005 dks lekIr gksus dk dFku fd;k gS ijrq mlds i'pkr gh Bsdk fdl rkjh[k dks lekIr gqvk ;g Hkh
vufHkKrk O;Dr dh gS ijarq bl lEcU/k esa izn'kZ ,e- 1 ds tfj;s nLrkost is'k dj dFku fd;k gS fd fnukad 03-11-2004 dks izri{kh la[;k 2 dks ysVj
vkWq baVsaM fn;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj fnukad 03-11-2004 dks fn;s x;s ysVj vkWQ baVsM ls Bsdk 1 o"kZ rd ds fy, fn;s tkus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS]
ftlds laca/k esa izn'kZ ,e- 1 ds rgr dkWUVªsDV fifj;M ds laca/k esa Li"V vadu gS fd The overall contractual period for the providing the
services shall be 1 year from the date of LOI (letter of indent) subject to renewal for the subsequent period on mutually
agreed terms. bl izdkj mDr nLrkosth lk{; ls Li"V gS fd lafonk lfoZl tks iznku dh tkuh Fkh mlds fy, Fkk vkSj og ysVj vkWQ bMsaV ds 1
o"kZ dh vof/k rd ds fy, FkkA ,sls esa tcfd ysVj vkWQ baMsV fnukad 03-11-2005 dks tkjh gqvk gS mlls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k esa Vs.Mj lekIr gksuk Fkk
ijarq pwafd Bsdk lfoZl gsrq Fkk vFkkZ tks dk;Z fn;k x;k gS mls iwjk djuk FkkA bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds xokg lat; xqIrk us ftjg esa Li"V
dFku fd;k gS fd ^^;g lgh gS fd izfri{kh la[;k 1 dks mUgksaus Bsdk fn;k FkkA mDr dkZ fnukad 22-02-2005 ls 15-12-2005 rd pyk FkkA** ,sls esa mDr
dk;Z fnukad 15-12-2005 dks pyus ds i'pkr mDr dk;Z ds laca/k esa tkjh lafonk lekIr le>h tkus ds laca/k esa Hkh ysVj vkWQ baMsaV izn'kZ ,e- 1 esa
Li"V vadu gSA bl izdkj mDr fuf'pr vof/k lekIr gksus ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh lafonkRed fu;qfDr Hkh fnukad 16-12-2005 ds lkFk gh lekIr gks xbZ]
,sls esa izkFkhZ dk ekeyk mDrkuqlkj NaVuh ds ^^viokn^^ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½¼chch½ esa vkus rFkk /kkjk 2¼vksvks½ ds ckgj dk gksus ls vf/kfu;e ds
vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fy, fd;k tkuk vko';d ugha FkkA
10& vr% mijksDr lexz foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 laLFkku us psuesu ds in ij vLFkk;h :i ls ,d fuf'pr le;kof/k tks
dk;Z ij fuf'pr Fkh ds fy, ^^lafonkRed (Contractual)" fu;qDr fd;k Fkk mDr vof/k dh lekfIr o dk;Z dh lekfIr ls izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa vizkFkhZ
la[;k 1 o vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds e/; gq, lafonk djkdj rFkk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 o izkFkhZ ds e/; jgh lsok&'krksZa ds vuqlkj fn- 16-12-2005 ls Lor% lekIr
gks x;h Fkh ftls vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½¼chch½ ds ^^viokn^^ ds jgrs gq, /kkjk 2¼vksvks½ ds rgr ^^NaVuh^^ dh Js.kh esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj ,slh
fLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd ds fy, vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 esa of.kZr vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha FkhA vr% izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZx.k ds
fo:) fdlh Hkh izdkj dksbZ vuqrks"k ikus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX; ugha gS vkSj mDr jsQzsUl blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
11& tgka rd izkFkhZ ds vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds ;gka fnukad 22-02-2005 ls 16-12-2005 rd dh vof/k esa 240 fnol ls vf/kd vof/k rd dk;Z fd;s tkus dk
iz'u gS rks bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds }kjk izLrqr nLrkosth lk{; ,oa ekSf[kd lk{; esa fdlh izdkj dk erHksn ugha gS vkSj mDr fuf'pr le;kof/k
ds nkSjku fd;s x;s dk;Z dks vizkFkhZi{k dh vksj ls izkFkhZ }kjk fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS ijarq pwafd mDr dk;Z fuf'pr le;kof/k rFkk fuf'pr
dk;Z dh lekfIr rd gh fd;k tkuk Fkk] ,sls esa izkFkhZ ds }kjk vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds ;gka 240 fnu ls vf/kd dk;Z fd;k tkuk fdlh Hkh :i esa izkFkhZ dks
dksbZ lgk;rk iznku ugah djrk gS D;ksafd izkFkhZ dk lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s tkus dks vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½¼chch½ ds ^^viokn^^ ds jgrs gq, /kkjk
2¼vksvks½ ds rgr ^^NaVuh^^ dh Js.kh esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS vkSj jsQzsal Hkh mDr foospukuqlkj mRrfjr d;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 14-05-2007 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh
vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed n;kjke dks vizkFkhZx.k us pSuesu ds in ij vLFkk;h :i ls fuf'pr le;kof/k ds fy, ^^lafonkRed
(Contractual)" fu;qDr fd;k Fkk mDr vof/k dh lekfIr ls izkFkhZ dh lsok;sa mHk;i{k ds e/; jgh lsok&'krksZa ds vuqlkj fnukad 16-12-2005 ls Lor%
lekIr gks x;h Fkh] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ dk izdj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼vksvks½ NaVuh dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkdj /kkjk 2¼vksvks½¼chch½ NaVuh ds ^^viokn^^ esa
vkus ls izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZx.k ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 27-01-2025 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks izdk'kukFkZ
fHktok;k tkosA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6205
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1680.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार श्री ओमससघ राजावत के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और ृत्थर खान कामगार यूजनयन, श्री कूका ससह, श्रीमती
सुरती बाई (वाइफ), जवजया (ृुत्री) एंड कुमारी गीतू के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,
कोटा, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-(केन्द्रीय) 09/2008 (सीआईएस-81/2014)) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 15.09.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं
-29011/3/2006-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1680.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central) 09/2008 (CIS-81/2014)) of the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Shri
Omsingh Rajawat and Stone Mines Workers Union, Shri Kuka Singh, Smt. Surati Bai (wife), Vijaya (daughter)
and Km. Geetu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.09.2025.
[No. L-29011/3/2006-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&09@2008¼lhvkbZ,l&81@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001722008½
fnukad LFkkfir% 02-04-2008
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz-
,y&29011@3@2006¼vkbZvkj¼,e½½fn- 31-05-2006
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
1&dwdk flag iq= Jh ekuk ¼nkSjkus fopkj.k e`R;q½
1@1&lwjrh ckbZ]
1@2&fot;k]
1@3&dqekjh yhyk ckbZ]
1@4 dqekjh xhrw]
¼e`rd Jfed ds dk;eeqdkeku dze'k% iRuh] iq=&iq=hx.k½
}kjk egkea=h] iRFkj [kku dkexkj ;wfu;u] caxkyh dkWyksuh]
Nkouh] dksVk
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
vkseflag jktkor] ekbZUl yht gksYMj] ldriqjk] dksVk
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh iq:"kksRre nk/khp
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh es?kjkt flag
6206
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fnukad%20-01-2025
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 31-05-2006 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ
fuEukuqlkj izkIr gqvkA
"Whether Sh. Kuka S/o Sh. Mana is in regular service of the management of Sh. Om Singh Rajawat
S/o Sh. Kalayan Singh, Mines Contractor, Saketpura, Distt. Kota w.e.f. 01/01/97 to 12/10/2004 for 240 days? If
yes, whether the action of the Mines Contractor in terminating the service of Sh. Kuka S/o Mana
W.e.f. 12/10/2004 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2&mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed
}kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mldks vizkFkhZ us fn- 01-01-97 ls
jktiqjk ekbZUl ij LVksu dVj dk dk;Z djus gsrq lsok esa fu;ksftr fd;kA Jfed ftruk dke jkstkuk djrk Fkk] fu;kstd dk eqa'kh jkstkuk mldh
iphZ;k fy[kdj nsrk Fkk mueas ls vf/kdka'k iphZ;k Jfed ds ikl ekStwn gS] blds vfrfjDr fu;kstd us Jfed dks 3000@&:- ekfld osru nsuk
r; fd;k gqvk FkkA Jfed efgus ds var esa osru dh ekax djrk Fkk ijUrq Jfed dks fu;kstd ;g dgrk Fkk fd fglkc ckn esa dj ysaxs] xqtkjs ds
fy, iSls ysrs jgks] Jfed dks 200@&:- izfrekg lIrkg xqtkjs [kpsZ dk fn;k tkrk FkkA Jfed us ;wfu;u ds ek/;e ls vyx ls osru dk fookn
la;qDr Je vk;qDr ¼dsUnzh;½ dksVk ds le{k izLrqr fd;k gqvk gSA vDVwcj 2004 esa Jfed o Jfed ds HkkbZ dSyk'k us fu;kstd ls fiNys osru dk
fglkc djus dh ekax dh rks 1&2 fnu rks fu;kstd Vkyrk jgk rFkk fn- 12-10-2004 dks fu;kstd] mlds eqa'kh o vU; dqN yksxksa us ekbZUl ij dk;Z
djrs gq, ekjihV dj Hkxk fn;kA Jfed ds xkao jkstk dk rykc ij tkdj Hkh ekjihV dh rFkk Jfed o mlds ifjokj dk xkao esa jguk eqf'dy gks
x;k rks fn- 16-10-2004 dks iqfyl v/kh{kd cwanh dks f'kdk;r dh o fn- 18-11-2004 dks ftyk/kh'k] cwanh dks f'kdk;r dh rc tkdj Jfed o mlds
fijokj ds lkFk fu;kstd dk ekjihV djuk can gqvkA fu;kstd us Jfed dks fn- 12-10-2004 ls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k gS tks voS/k gSA Jfed us
fu;kstd ds ;gka ij fn- 01-01-97 ls 11-10-2004 rd 240 fnu ls vf/kd fujarj dk;Z fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVkrs le; uksfVl]
uksfVl osru o NaVuh eqvkotk ugha nsdj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] izkFkhZ ls dfu"B Jfedksa dks fu;kstu eas j[kdj izkFkhZ dks gVkdj vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 25 th ,oa izkFkhZ dks gVk dj mlds LFkku ij u, Jfed dks fu;ksftr dj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,p ds izko/kkuksa dh vogsyuk dh gS ,oa
fu;kstd dk ;g d`R; vuQs;j yscj izsfDVl dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA fu;kstd us Jfed dks fn- 01-01-97 ls ukSdjh ls gVk, tkus rd cdk;k
2]70]600@&:- dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k gS rFkk Jfed ds fo:) mYVs 57]369@&:- ,Mokal jkf'k ysuk fudky j[kk gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ
dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
3&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ muds fu;kstu esa dHkh Hkh dk;Zjr ugha jgk gS
uk gh mlus mlus muds ;gka dHkh dksbZ dk;Z fd;k gSA uk gh muds e/; deZdkj&fu;kstd ds laca/k LFkkfir jgs gSA blfy, izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk
i= [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
4&lk{; esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls fot; o vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vkse flag ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls ijLij ftjg dh x;hA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls
nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA
5&mHk;i{kksa dh cgl lquh xbZ] tks fd mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA
6&gLrxr izdj.k esa eq[;r% ;gh ns[kk tkuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ Jfed dwdk us vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa mlds }kjk of.kZr lsok i`Fkdrk fn- 12-10-2004
ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"kZ fujUrj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k x;k gS vFkok ugha\
bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls lk{; esa fot; dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr gqvk gS ftlesa mlus LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh
iqujko`fRr dh gS ,oa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlus dksbZ dke ugha fd;k ijUrq mlds firkth us dke fd;k gSA tc mlds firkth dke djrs Fks ml
le; esa i<+kbZ djrk FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlds firkth dwdk us ftrus fQV dke fd;k mrus fQV dk iSlk mlds firk dks fn;k gks cfYd
Lo;a us dgk fd mlds firkth dks 3 gtkj :i;s ekfld nsus dk oknk fd;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd mlds firkth dks ?kj [kpZ ds fy, 200
:i;s lIrkg ds nsrs FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd fglkc&fdrkc dh dksbZ Hkh iphZ i=koyh esa 'kkfey ugha gS rFkk dksbZ Hkh joUuk ftl ij Hkqxrku gqvk
gks mlds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh nLrkost i=koyh esa ugh gSA fnukad 01-01-1997 ls ysdj 12-10-2004 rd mlds firkth us dke fd;k gSA mä le;
dk dk;Z djus dk fu;fer :i ls dksbZ Hkh nLrkost i=koyh esa is'k ugh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd blls iwoZ dksbZ f'kdk;r dh gks mldk nLrkost
Hkh is'k ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ftl le; mlds firkth [kku ij dke djrs Fks ml oä og lkFk esa ugha jgrk FkkA [kqn dgk fd çR;sd
jfookj dks og firkth ds lkFk tkrk FkkA tc rd firkth dke djrs Fks rc rd og ogka ij gh :drk FkkA dsoy og jfookj dks gh tkrk Fkk
ckfd esa çR;sd fnu i<kbZ djrk FkkA tc mlds firkth dks gVk;k] mUgksus mlh le; dk;Zokgh dj nh FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd mlds firkth
us ftrus fnu dk;Z fd;k mrus fnu dh gkftjh ns nh gksA
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa vkse flag dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mlus tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh
iqujko`fRr dh vksj ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd tokc çkFkZuk i= ds çFke ist dk iSjk uEcj 5 esa fy[kh , ls ch bckjr
lgh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd tokc çkFkZuk i= ds f}rh; ist dk iSjk uEcj 1 fo'ks"k dFku dk lh ls gh Hkkx lgh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd deZdkj
us dc&dc dke fd;k ftldk fjd‚MZ mlds ikl ugha gksus ij is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSA çkFkhZ tc Hkh dke djus vkrk Fkk mldk mlh fnu dk
ukirksy djds fglkc dj fn;k tkrk Fkk ftlds dkj.k muds ikl dksbZ nLrkost miyC/k ugha gSA ml le; dk ys[kk&tks[kk dk bUækt ugh fd;k
tkrk FkkA ftruk isesUV çkFkhZ dk curk Fkk mruk ns nsrs FksA og vk;&O;; dk fooj.k vk;dj foHkkx dks ugha nsrs FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd mudk
jktiqjk xkbZUl esa LVksu dV dk dk;Z gksrk FkkA çR;sd fnu dk;Z djus okys etwnj dk Hkqxrku iphZ ns[kdj mlh fnu Hkqxrku dj nsrs FksA ;g ckr
lgh gS fd le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k çn'kZ MCY;w 2 mlds }kjk gh is'k fd;k x;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd tokc çkFkZuk i= ds ist uEcj 3 esa
iSjk uEcj 2 esa , ch Hkkx lgh gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd mlus tks çkFkhZ dks vfxze jkf'k nh gS mldk fooj.k mlus U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;k gSA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6207
dwdk us fnukad 01-01-1997 ls 11-10-2004 rd fu;fer :i ls mlds ikl dke ugha fd;k gSA dwdk ds HkkbZ dSyk'k us Hkh mlds ikl ;gk FkksMs
fnu dke fd;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd fnukad 12-10-2004 dks mlds eqa'kh rFkk dqN yksxks us ekjihV djds Hkxk fn;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS
fd çkFkhZ us muls vDVqcj 2004 dks osru ekaxk gks vkSj mUgksus Hkxk fn;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd çkFkhZ dks 2]70]600@& ds Hkqxrku ugh djds
mlds cnys 57369@&vfxze jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djds ckdh cph jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugh fd;k gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd Jfed us gekjs ;gk 8 lky
yxkrkj dke fd;k gksA jkf'k 57]369@& dk Hkqxrku mUgksus vyx&vyx frfFk esa fd;k gS ijUrq mldk fooj.k i=koyh esa is'k ugha fd;k gSA Je
foHkkx dk ekbZUl dk jftLVMZ çek.k i= is'k ugha fd;k D;ksafd ekbZUl mlds uke ls jftLVMZ ugha gS k
7&lk{; ds mijksDr foospu ls ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fn- 01-01-97 ls 11-10-2004 rd 240 fnu ls
vf/kd dk;Z djus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ Jfed dks ukSdjh ls gVkrs le; cdk;k osru dk Hkqxrku
ugha fd;k uk gh mUgksus vf/kfu;e ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk dhA vizkFkhZ i{k dk ;g dFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed o muds e/;
deZdkj&fu;kstd ds laca/k LFkkfir ugha jgs gS uk gh mUgksus izkFkhZ Jfed dk dHkh fu;ksftr fd;k gS uk gh izkFkhZ Jfed us muds ;gka dHkh dksbZ
dk;Z fd;k gS ;fn fQj Hkh izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk muds ;gka dHkh dksbZ dk;Z fd;k x;k gksxk rks muds }kjk mls mlh le; Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;k gksxk]
blfy, izkFkhZ i{k dk Dyse fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls i=koyh ij tks nLrkost lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gSmuesa izn'kZ MCY;w 1
izkFkhZ dk le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr izkFkZuk i=] izn'kZ MCY;w 2 vizkFkhZ dk tokc izkFkZuk i=] izn'kZ MCY;w 3 izkFkhZ i{k dk izR;qRrj] izn'kZ
MCY;w 4 vlQy okrkZ izfrosnu gSA izkFkhZ dks okafNr vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds fy, ;g izekf.kr djuk vko';d gS fd mlus mldh lsok lekfIr
fnukad 12-10-2004 ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"kZ vFkkZr fn 12-10-2003 ls 11-10-2004 rd esa fujarj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gksA izkFkhZ Jfed ij 240
fnu yxkrkj dke djus ds rF; dks lkfcr djus dk tks Hkkj gS] mlesa izkFkhZ Jfedk }kjk dsoy ek= vius 'kiFk&i= esa ;g fy[k nsuk fd mlus
240 fnu rd yxkrkj dke fd;k] i;kZIr ugha gksxk] vfirq mls fdlh Bksl ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh;@nLrkosth lk{; ls bl rF; dks lkfcr djuk
gksxk ftlls fd ;g rF; lEiq"V gks ldsA fdUrq izkFkhZ i{k }kjk vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa dksbZ gktjh jftLVj] osru Lyhi] eLVjksy bR;kfn
nLrkost is'k ugha fd, gS ,oa gLrxr izdj.k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls izkFkhZ i{k ;g rF; lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gS fd izkFkhZ
Jfed }kjk crkbZ xbZ lsok lekfIr dh fnukad ls Bhd iwoZ ds 12 dyS.Mj ekg dh vof/k esa mlus vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa fujUrj 240 ;k mlls
vf/kd dk;Z fd;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa bl laca/k esa le;≤ ij ;gh fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS&
Ranip Nagar Palika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore-IX(2007) SLT 805 SC esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g
fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd LABOUR LAW- 240 days completion of service- Burden of proof lies on workman to show he
worked continuously for 240 days for preceding one year - It is for workman to adduce evidence apart from examining
himself to prove factum of being in employment of employer.
State of Gujrat vs Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, (2001) 9 SCC 713. esa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus of the management
without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the
year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the
appeallant. It was them for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. Filling of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days
in a year. No Proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this
period was produced by the workman. on this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside.
Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. v(2004) LST
686=2004(8)SCC161, ¼iSjk 6½ esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "It was the case of the workman
that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the
claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his termination. He has
filed an affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence
for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year. These
aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (3) SCC 25. No Proof of receipt of salary or
wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere Non-production of the muster roll for a
particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court to hold that the workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."
Manager Reserve Bank of India Bangalore Vs S. Mani and Others 2005 (5) SCC page 100 esa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd The Initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed
240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer was held to be erroneous.
R.M. Yellatti Vs The Asst. Executive Engineer (2006 (1) SCC 1006) 2005 AIR SCW 6103 esa ekuuh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd "Analysing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the
Evidence Act. in terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However,
applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgements we find that this court has repeatedly taken the
view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year.
6208
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8&bl izdkj mijksDr foospu o fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ i{k viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) dj ikus esa vlQy jgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dwdk us
vizkFkhZ ds ;gkW muds }kjk crkbZ xbZ lsok lekfIr fnukad 12-10-2004 ls Bhd iwoZ ds ,d dyS.Mj o"kZ] vFkkZr 12 dyS.Mj ekg esa fujUrj 240 fnu
dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ i{k }kjk i=koyh ij ,slh Hkh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ gS ftlls ;g fl) gks fd vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ Jfed dks gVkrs le;
vf/kfu;e ds fdlh vkKkid izko/kku dh vogsyuk dh gksA blfy, izkFkhZ i{k] vizkFkhZ ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX;
ugha gS ,oa lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 31-05-2006 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn
dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ i{k viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed dwdk us mlds }kjk
of.kZr lsok i`Fkdrk fnukad 12-10-2004 ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa fuajrj 240 fnu ;k mlls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k gksA vr% izkFkhZ
Jfed ds dk;eeqdkeku] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 20-01-2025 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks
izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1681.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार एसीसी सीमेंट वक्सड जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और अध्यक्ष, ृ ार खान, यातायत श्रजमक संघ के बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोटा, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-(केन्द्रीय) 17/2007 (सीआईएस-
04/2014)) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ
15.09.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं
-29012/40/2007-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1681.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central) 17/2007 (CIS-04/2014)) of the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to ACC
Cement Works Limited and President, Pathar Khan, Yatayat Labour Union which was received along with soft
copy of the award by the Central Government on 15.09.2025.
[No. L-29012/40/2007-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&17@2007¼lhvkbZ,l&04@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060000112007½
fnukad LFkkfir% 22-10-2007
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz-
,y&29012@40@2007 ¼vkbZvkj¼,e½½ fn-%10-09-2007
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6209
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
v/;{k] iRFkj [kku] ;krk;kr yscj ;wfu;u] yk[ksjh] cwanh
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
egkizca/kd] ,-lh-lh- lhesaV oDlZ fy-] yk[ksjh] cwanh
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
dksbZ mifLFkr ugha
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh ds-ds- 'kekZ
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fn-% 09-01-2025
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 10-09-2007 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ
fuEukuqlkj izkIr gqvk gS%&
"Whether the demand of Pathar Khan yatayat Labour Union for payment of bonus for the year 2004-2005 from
the ACC Ltd., Lakheri and its various contractors engaged for transportation of Lime Stone namely, S/Sh.
Rambabu Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Sharma Brothers and M/s Garima Trading Company, Lakheri, Shyam
Purohit, Chiranjilal Shrimal, Proprietor M/s Giriraj Brothers, Bundi is just and fair? If so, to what relief the
workmen are entitled?"
2&mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa izkFkhZ Jfed
}kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izfri{kh ,d fyfeVsM dEiuh gS
tgka ij LFkk;h o vLFkkbZ deZpkjh dke djrs gS blds vykok dEiuh us vius dk;Z gsrq Bsdsnkjksa dks viuh dEiuh esa dkWUVªsDV csfll ij ;krk;kr
dk;Z gsrq dkWUVªsDVj o lIyk;lZ gsrq 1&jke ckcw 'kekZ] yk[ksjh] 2&jes'k Jh eky] bUnzx<+] ';ke iqjksfgr] yk[skjh ls dkWUVªsDV fd;kA mDr Bsdsnkjksa ds
ikl MªkbZoj] gsYij] eqa'kh dk dke vusd O;fDr djrs gS ftudks dEiuh }kjk vFkok Bsdsnkjksa }kjk fdlh izdkj dk cksul dh jkf'k ugha nh tkrh gS]
lkFk gh lkFk ih-,Q- Hkh ugha dkVk tkrk gS] xsVikl tkjh ugha fd;k tkrk gS cfYd 12&12 ?kaVs dh M~;wVh yh tkrh gS] mDr MªkbZoj gsYij o eqa'kh
dks u rks onhZ nh tkrh gS vkSj u gh gksyh Ms dh loSrfud o lkIrkfgd vodk'k Hkh ugha fn;k tkrk gS] lsQVh 'kwt Hkh ugha fn, tkrs gS] osru dh
iphZ Hkh ugha tkrh gS vkSj uk gh vksojVkbZe fn;k tkrk gSA cfYd deZpkfj;ksa dks ijs'kku fd;k tkrk vkSj fu/kkZfjr le; ls T;knk le; dk;Z fy;k
tkrk gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed Hkh vU; jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ds vuqlkj MªkbZoj] gsYij o eqa'kh dks Hkh mijksDr lHkh izdkj dh lqfo/kk dks
dEiuh ls fnyk, tkus dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
3&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd foi{kh dEiuh us le>kSrk vf/kdkjh ds uksfVl dk
tokc izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k fd ftu O;fDr;ksa ds fo"k; esa cksul dh ekax dh xbZ gS os Bsdsnkj ds deZpkjh gS o foi{kh dEiuh ds deZpkjh ugha
gS muesa foi{kh dEiuh esa Lokeh ,oa lsod dk fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ laca/k ugha gSA u rks foi{kh dEiuh us mudks dHkh fu;qDr fd;k] uk gh mu ij
dHkh foi{kh daiuh dk fu;a=.k jgkA foi{kh dEiuh isesaV vkWQ cksul ,DV vFkok dkWUVªsDV vFok isesaV vkWQ ostst ,DV vFkok vU; fdlh Hkh fof/k
ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds Jfedksa dks cksul dk Hkqxrku djus ds fy, mRrjnk;h ugha gSA Bsdsnkjksa }kjk vius Jfedksa dks tks cksul
izkIr djus ds ;ksX; Fks mUgsa Bsdsnkjksa }kjk cksul jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gS o Hkqxrku dk LVsVesaV Hkh le>kSrk v/fkdkjh ds le{k izLrqr fd;k
x;kA foi{kh dEiuh us Bsdsnkjksa dks viuh [kkuksa ls dkj[kkus rd ykbZe LVsku igqpkus ds fy, VªkaliksVZs'ku dk Bsdk ns j[kk Fkk o mDr dk;Z ds fy,
Bsdsnkjksa us vius deZpkjh j[ks gq, Fks] tks fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds Jfedx.k gSA izkFkhZ ;wfu;u ds deZpkfj;ksa dk fu;kstd Bsdsnkj gS blfy, dkWUVªsDV
yscj ¼jsxqys'ku ,.M vcksfy'ku½ ,DV ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj foi{kh dEiuh ds fo:) dksbZ jsQjsal izsf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS o fookn izLrqr
ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS ,oa izkFkhZ ;wfu;u muls o"kZ 2004&2005 ds fy, cksul dh jkf'k vFkok vU; dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkSj
izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk Dyse fujk/kkj gksus ls lO;; fujLr fd;k tkosA
4&izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls lk{; esa vCnqy xQ~Qqj dk 'kiFk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fdUrq ftjg gsrq xokg ds mifLFkr ugha vkus ds dkj.k vkns'k fn-
19-07-2024 ls mldh lk{; can dh xbZ ,oa vizkFkhZ }kjk lk{; izLrqr ugha djus ds dkj.k vkns'k fnukad 26-12-2024 }kjk vizkFkhZ i{k dh lk{; can
dh xbZA
5&izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls rkjh[k is'kh fn- 22-10-24] 28-11-2024] 13-12-2024] 26-12-2024 ,oa 27-12-2024 dks fdlh ds mifLFkfr ugha vkus ds dkj.k
vizkFkhZ i{k ds izfrfuf/k dh cgl lquh x;hA izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k i=koyh miyC/k lkexzh ,oa vizkFkhZ
izfrfuf/k dh cgl ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tk jgk gSA
6210
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6&lquk x;k] i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA pwafd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk dk ;g ekeyk o"kZ 2007 ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k esa yfEcr gS vkSj izdj.k
fnukad 19-05-2022 ls lk{; izkFkhZ esas fu;r pyk vk jgk gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ i{k }kjk dkQh volj fn;s tkus ds mijkar Hkh izkFkhZ i{k dk xokg ftjg
gsrq U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gqvk ftlds dkj.k vkns'k fnukad 19-07-2024 }kjk izkFkhZ i{k dh lk{; can dh xbZ ,oa vizkFkhZ }kjk Hkh lk{; izLrqr ugha
djus ds mldh Hkh lk{; vkns'k fn- 26-12-2024 }kjk can dh xbZ ,oa i=koyh dks cgl vafre gsrq fu;r fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls rkjh[k
is'kh fn- 22-10-24] 28-11-2024] 13-12-2024] 26-12-2024 ,oa 27-12-2024 dks fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha vkus ds dkj.k izdj.k esa izkFkhZ i{k dh mnklhurk
dks izdV djrk gS vkSj blls izdV gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u vius Dyse ds izfr ;qfDr;qDr :fp ugha j[krh gSA izkFkhZ i{k U;k;ky; ds le{k
vuqrks"k gsrq viuk ekeyk ysdj vk;k gS rks mls iw.kZ rRijrk o ltxrk ls viuk i{k j[kus gsrq Lo;a vFkok vius vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k dks U;k;ky; esa
izR;sd is'kh ij mifLFkr j[kdj vius ekeys esa vfHk:fp fn[kkuh pkfg, Fkh] fdUrq izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dh vksj ls xr dbZ isf'k;ksa ls U;k;ky; esa dksbZ
mifLFkr ugha vk;kA tcfd ;g izdj.k bl U;k;ky; ds yf{kr 100 izdj.kksa esa dze la- 58 ij yfEcr gS ,oa ;g izdj.k bl U;k;kf/kdj.k esa
yxHkx 17 o"kkZsa ls yfEcr gS rFkk ekuuh; jkt- mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ,sls ekeyksa dks Rofjr xfr ls fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus gsrq fn'kkfunsZ'k izkIr gq, gSA
,slh fLFkfr esa izdj.k dks vfuf'pr dky ds fy, yfEcr j[kk tkuk vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha gS vkSj mDr foospu ds ifjizs{; esa izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk ;g ekeyk
^^fookn jfgr^^ gks tkrk gS o lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl Hkh blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 10-09-2007 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn
dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ ;wfu;u v/;{k iRFkj [kku yscj ;wfu;u] yk[ksjh] cwanh }kjk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha djus ,oa izkFkhZ
i{k dh vksj ls fdlh ds mifLFkr ugha gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ ;wfu;u dk ;g ekeyk ^^fookn jfgr^^ gks tkrk gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 09-01-2025 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks
izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1682.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार श्री रामिरण के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और राष्ट्रीय मजदूर संघ (इंटक) के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट औद्योजगक
अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कोटा, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-(केन्द्रीय) 03/2019 (सीआईएस-05/2019)) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 15.09.2025 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं
-28011/1/2018-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1682.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. (Central) 03/2019 (CIS-05/2019)) of the Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Shri
Ramsharan and Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 15.09.2025.
[No. L-28011/1/2018-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½] dksVk
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad% vkS-U;k-&03@2019¼lhvkbZ,l&05@2019½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060000522019½
fnukad LFkkfir% 24-01-2019
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6211
izlax%
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky; vf/klwpuk la[;k L-28011/1/2018-IR(M) fnukad 13-12-2018
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
e/;
jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k ¼baVd½ tfj;s ea=h jkexksiky xqIrk] jkexate.Mh] ftyk dksVk ¼jkt-½
--------------izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
eS- jke'kj.k iq= Jh jkethnkl th eksnh] [knku xsi ,fj;k] ihik[ksM+h] yht ekfyd] edku ua- 17] 18] :de.kh foyk] ryoaMh] dksVk ¼jkt-½
-------------vizkFkhZ&fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh pUnzeksgu oekZ
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
dksbZ mifLFkr ugha
%vf/kfu.kZ;%
fnukad 30-05-2025
jktLFkku ljdkj] Je foHkkx dh izklkafxd vf/klwpuk fnukad 13-12-2018 ds }kjk fuEu funsZ'k@fookn] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]
1947 ¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ lEizsf"kr fd;k x;k gS%&
**D;k Jh jke'kj.k iq= Jh jkethnkl eksnh] yht ekfyd] edku ua- 17&18] :ed.kh foyk] ryoaMh] dksVk dh [knku ¼xsi ,fj;k½]
ihik[ksM+h [knku esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa ds fy;s izkFkhZ ;wfu;u jk"Vªh; etnwj la?k ¼bUVd½ dh o"kZ 2016&17 ds fy;s 20 izfr'kr
dh nj ls cksul Hkqxrku djus dh ekax mfpr ,oa fof/k lEer gSa \ ;fn gka] rks [knku esa dk;Zjr Jfed fdl jkgr ds gdnkj gSa \
2&funsZ'k@fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa izkIr gksus ij iathc) mijkUr i{kdkjksa dks lwpuk@uksfVl fof/kor tkjh dj voxr djok;k x;kA
3&gLrxr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl] fu;kstd Jh jke'kj.k iq= Jh jkethnkl eksnh] yht ekfyd] edku ua- 17&18] :ed.kh foyk] ryoaMh] dksVk dh [knku
¼xsi ,fj;k½] ihik[ksM+h [knku esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dks o"kZ 2016&17 ds fy;s 20 izfr'kr dh nj ls cksul Hkqxrku djus dh mfprrk ,oa
oS/krk ds iz'u ds fofu'p;kFkZ bl U;k;kf/kdj.k dks izkIr gqvk ftlds lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls viuk vH;kosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
4& izdj.k vizkFkhZ dh rkdhy gsrq fu;r pyk vk jgk gSA izkFkhZ us U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k fn- 30-05-2025 dks Lo;a e; izfrfuf/k mifLFkfr gksdj
izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj dFku fd;k gS fd izdj.k esa izfri{kh jke'kj.k dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS QeZ [knku Hkh fuf"dz; gks pqdh gS] izkFkhZ Jfed i{k dh
vksj ls vc fdlh vuqrks"k dh izkfIr dh pkgr 'ks"k ugha gS vkSj izdj.k dks foMªk ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA
5&eSaus mHk;i{k dks lquk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k pwWfd izkFkhZ us e; izfrfuf/k U;k;kf/kdj.k esa mifLFkr gksdj ;g dFku fd;k fd og izdj.k dks
okil ysuk pkgrk gS ,oa vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrk gS ftlls izkFkhZ dk ;g ekeyk vc ^^fookn jfgr^^ gks tkrk gS o lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl Hkh blh
vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je foHkkx }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 13-12-2018 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh
vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd gLrxr izdj.k dks izkFkhZ okil ysuk pkgrk gS rFkk vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrk gS ftlls izdj.k ^^fookn jfgr^^ gks
tkrk gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k]
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 30-05-2025 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks
izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1683.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार उृ मंडल अजभयंता, बीएसएनएल, नागभीड, जजला-चंद्रृुर, चंद्रृुर (एम.एस); महाप्रबंधक, बीएसएनएल, चंद्रृुर
(एम.एस.) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री गंगाधर, चंद्रृुर (एम.एस.) के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार
6212
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या-सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/04/2019-20) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक
में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-40012/10/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1683.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/04/2019-20) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Chandrapur (M.S); The General Manager, BSNL, Chanderpur
(M.S) and Sh. Gangadhar, Chanderpur (M.S).
[No. L-40012/10/2019 -IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/04/2019-20
Date: 04.07.2025.
Party No.1:
1. The Sub Divisional Engineer,
BSNL, Nagbhid, Distt-Chandrapur,
CHANDRAPUR (M.S) - 442401
2. The General Manager,
BSNL, Chandrapur, Tah & Distt - Chandrapur
CHANDRAPUR (M.S) – 442401
V/s.
Party No.2:
Sh. Gangadhar S/O Devaram Chanekar
R/o Chikmara, Tah & Dist – Chandrapur
CHANDRAPUR (M.S.) - 442401
AWARD
(Dated: 04th July, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the Industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of BSNL and their Workman Shri Gangadhar Devaram
Chanekar for adjudication, as per letter No. L-40012/10/2019 (IR(DU)) dated 11.04.2019, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the action of the management of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nagbhid Distt –
Chandrapur in terminating the service of Sh. Gangadhar Devaram Chanekar, worker, should reinstate
him on his usual work and along with back wages from 09.01.2016 to till his actual joining in his service,
is just, fair or legal? if not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?‖
2.
Case called out. Representative of the respondent is present before the Court. None is present on behalf of the
petitioner. The petitioner is not coming to the court since 02/04/2020. Although statement of claim and Written statement
have been filed by the parties respectively. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner
is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of
the petitioner is not proved, so it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The action of the management of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Nagbhid Distt – Chandrapur in
terminating the service of Sh. Gangadhar Devaram Chanekar, worker, is just, fair and legal. The workman is not
entitled to any relief.‖
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6213
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1684.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मजससड बालाजी एसोजसएट्स, नागृुर; जनदेिक, जवश्वेश्वरजया राष्ट्रीय प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोजकों और अध्यक्ष, वीएनआईटी कंराजत मजदूर संघ, नागृुर के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/10/2023-24) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/199-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1684.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/10/2023-24) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Balaji Associates, Nagpur; The Director, Visvesvariya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur
and The President, VNIT Kantrati Majdoor Sangh, Nagpur.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/199-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/10/2023-24
Date: 03.07.2025.
Party No.1:
1. M/s Balaji Associates,
Contractor, GS-37, Amar jyoti Palace,
Lokmat Square, Wardha Road, Nagpur,
Pin-440012.
2. The Director,
Visvesvariya National Institute of Technology,
South Ambajhari Road, Gopal Nagar, Nagpur
Pin-440022.
V/s.
Party No.2:
The President,
VNIT Kantrati Majdoor Sangh,
BMS Office, Behind Apana Bhandar,
Mandir Marg, Sitabuldi, Nagpur (MH).
Pin 440012.
AWARD
(Dated: 03rd Jully, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology Nagpur
through its Director, M/s Balaji Associates, Nagpur, and their workmen/ The President, VNIT Kantrati Majdoor Sangh,
Nagpur, for adjudication, as per letter No. NGP/8(02)/2023-ID(RLC(C) dated 20.05.2023,
with the
following schedule:-
6214
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
―Whether the action of the management of Balaji Associates in not allowing 15 workmen (List of
workmen mentioned below) to resume their work in the premises of Visvesvaraya National Institute of
Technology, Nagpur w.e.f. 05/09/2022 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to?‖
List of workmen: 1. Naresh Sayam, 2. Dinesh Shende, 3. Mahesh Raut, 4. Amar Patil, 5. Mahendra Singh
Parihar, 6. Akash Khadse, 7. Chudaman Thavkar, 8. Amit Takit, 9. Dhiraj Bhelkar, 10. Omkar Thavkar, 11.
Eknath Patil, 12. Rajesh Raut, 13. Sanjay Raut, 14. Sushil Pandhare, 15. Niketan Thakur.
2.
Case is called out. Both parties absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that petitioner is not coming to the
Court since 23.02.2024. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till
today. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. It
appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of Balaji Associates in not allowing 15 workmen (List of workmen
mentioned below) to resume their work in the premises of Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur
w.e.f. 05/09/2022 is legal and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief.
List of workmen: 1. Naresh Sayam, 2. Dinesh Shende, 3. Mahesh Raut, 4. Amar Patil, 5. Mahendra Singh
Parihar, 6. Akash Khadse, 7. Chudaman Thavkar, 8. Amit Takit, 9. Dhiraj Bhelkar, 10. Omkar Thavkar, 11.
Eknath Patil, 12. Rajesh Raut, 13. Sanjay Raut, 14. Sushil Pandhare, 15. Niketan Thakur.
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1685.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मु्य महाप्रबंधक, एन.टी.ृी.सी. मौदा, नागृुर; क्षेत्रीय कायडकारी जनदेिक, आईआरडी एनटीृीसी जलजमटेड, मुंबई;
प्रबंध जनदेिक, एनजो कंस्ट्रक्िन जलजमटेड, ददल्ली; महाप्रबंधक, एनजो कंस्ट्रक्िन जलजमटेड, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोजकों और अध्यक्ष, मौदा जवज प्रकल्ृ मजदूर संघ, नागृुर के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/11/2022-23) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42011/181/2022-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1685.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/11/2022-23) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief General Manager, N.T.P.C. Mouda,Nagpur; The Regional Executive Director, IRD NTPC
Ltd., Mumbai; The Managing Director, Energo Construction Ltd., Delhi; The General Manager, Energo
Construction Ltd.,Nagpur and The President, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur.
[No. L-42011/181/2022 -IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/11/2022-23
Date: 03.07.2025.
Party No.1:
1. The Chief General Manager,
N.T.P.C. Mouda,
Tah. Mouda, Nagpur-441104.
2. The Regional Executive Director, IRD
NTPC Ltd.,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6215
2nd Floor, Samradhi Venture Park,
MIDC Marol, Andhrei (East) Chakla,
Mumbai-400093.
3. The Managing Director,
Energo Construction Ltd.
Regd. Office-Flat No. 906-907, Hemkunt
Tower 6, Rajendra Place, New Delhi Central
Delhi-110008.
4. The General Manager,
Energo Construction Ltd.,
NTPC Mouda, Tah-Mouda, Nagpur-441104.
V/s.
Party No.2:
The President,
Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,
House of Sh. Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road,
Kanhan, Tah-Parseoni,
Nagpur-441404.
AWARD
(Dated: 03rd Jully, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of NTPC Mouda, M/s Engro Construction Limited,
Nagpur, and their workman Shri. Ritesh Dadarao Shende, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/181/2022 (IR(DU)
dated 02.06.2022, with the following schedule:-
―Whether the claim of Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur vide letter dated 18.02.2021 that
employment of Shri Ritesh Dadarao Shende is illegally terminated w.e.f. 23.12.2020 by the management
of M/s Energo Construction Limited, Nagpur (contractor) at NTPC, Mouda, Nagpur, is proper, legal and
justified? If yes, to what relief the disputant worker entitled? What other directions, if any, are necessary
in this matter?‖
2.
Case is called out. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court since
15.05.2023 despite service of notices. No statement of claim and written statement have been filed by the parties
respectively till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Petitioner is not coming to
the Court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is
not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The claim of Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur vide letter dated 18.02.2021 that employment
of Shri Ritesh Dadarao Shende is illegally terminated w.e.f. 23.12.2020 by the management of M/s Energo
Construction Limited, Nagpur (contractor) at NTPC, Mouda, Nagpur, is improper, illegal and unjustified. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1686.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जनदेिक, नीरी, नागृुर; मेससड ग्रेट िेरलोक, ृूवड सजनक सुजवधा एवं सुरक्षा, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों
और महासजचव, सुरक्षा रक्षक श्रजमक संग न, नागृुर के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह-
श्रम न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/18/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/167-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6216
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1686.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/18/2024) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Director,NEERI, Nagpur; M/s. Great Sherlok, Ex- Serviceman’s Facility & Security, Nagpur and
The General Secretary, Surasha Rakshak Shramik Sangathan, Nagpur.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/167-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/18/2024
Date: 21.08.2025.
Party No.1:
1. The Director,
NEERI, Nehru Marg,
Wardha Road, Nagpur - 440025
2. M/s. Great Sherlok,
Ex- Serviceman‘s Facility & Security,
Management Pvt. Ltd. 3, Suyog Apoartment,
Opp. Bank of Baroda, Trimurti Nagar,
Bus Stop, Nagpur- 440022
V/s.
Party No.2: The General Secretary,
Surasha Rakshak Shramik Sangathan,
(Vidarbha Pradesh), 5/2, Somwaru Quarter,
Near E.S.I. Hospital, Nagpur – 440024.
AWARD
(Dated: 21st August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of NEERI Nagpur, M/s. Great Sherlok Ex- Serviceman‘s Facility & Security Management Pvt. Ltd and the
applicant, Shri. Uma Pratap Sharma for adjudication vide No. NGP-8(04)/2024-ID(ALCNGP) dt. 31/03/2024, with the
following issues framed: -
―Whether the action of the management of the Great Sherlok Ex-Servicemen facility & Security
Management Private Limited (Contractor of National Environment Engineering Research Institute,
Nagpur) in terminating the service of their workman Shri. Uma Pratap Sharma & others workmen, is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the Union/Workmen are entitled to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Both the parties absent despite service of notices. No Statement of Claim and Written
Statement have been filed by the parties till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his
case. The petitioner is not coming to the court despite service of notices. It appears that the petitioner is not
interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The action of the management of the Great Sherlok Ex-Servicemen facility & Security Management
Private Limited (Contractor of National Environment Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur) in terminating
the service of their workman Shri. Uma Pratap Sharma & others workmen, is legal and justified. The
Union/Workmen are not entitled to any relief.‖
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6217
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1687.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार अधीक्षण ृुरातत्वजवद् (प्रभारी), भारतीय ृुरातत्व सवेक्षण, नागृुर; वररष्ठ संरक्षण सहायक, भारतीय ृुरातत्व
सवेक्षण, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री मारोती एल. चौधरी, महाराष्ट्र के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/20/2022-23) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/201-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1687.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/20/2022-23) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The
Superintending
Archaeologist
(I/C),
Archaeological
Survey
of
India
Nagpur;The
Sr. Conservation Assistant Archeological Survey of India and Shri. Maroti L. Choudhary, Maharastra.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/201-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/20/2022-23
Date: 29.08.2025.
Party No.1:
The Superintending Archaeologist (I/C),
Archaeological Survey of India Nagpur &
The Sr. Conservation Assistant Archeological
Survey of India, Purtatva 2nd Floor Bunglow
No. 11, Seminary Hills.
V/s.
Party No.2: Shri. Maroti L. Choudhary,
Gautam Nagar Ward Near Mahakali,
Temple, Chandrapur, MH -442401
AWARD
(Dated: 29th August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of The Superintending Archaeologist (I/C), Archaeological Survey of India Nagpur & The Sr. Conservation
Assistant Archeological Survey of India & and the applicant, Shri. Maroti L. Choudhary for adjudication vide No.
ALCH-8(05)/2022-ID dt. 16.06.2022, with the following issues framed: -
―Whether the demand of the workman Shri Maroti L. Choudhary for re-instatement in services as
Casual Labour (in the establishment of Archaeological Survey of India), is legal and justified? If yes, to
what relief the Union/Workman is entitled to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that both parties are not
responding and attending the court since 04.04.2023. Accidently, on 13.11.2024 leaned counsel for the petitioner
was present but today both parties are absent. The petitioner has not filed his Statement of Claim till today. No other
evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The demand of the workman Shri Maroti L. Choudhary for re-instatement in services as Casual Labour
(in the establishment of Archaeological Survey of India), is illegal and unjustified. The Workman is not entitled to
any relief.‖
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
6218
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1688.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मानव संसाधन अजधकारी, मेससड प्रताृ टेक्नोक्रेट्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
अध्यक्ष, भारतीय व्याृार संघ केंद्र, अमरावती के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/27/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/202-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1688.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/27/2024) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Human Resource Officer, M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur and The President, Center
of Indian Trade Union, Amrawati.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/202-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/27/2024
Date: 28.08.2025.
Party No.1:
The Human Resource Officer,
M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd.,
17/2, IT Park, Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar
Road, Nagpur - 440022
V/s.
Party No.2: The President,
Center of Indian Trade Union,
2nd Floor, Jaipurwala Tower, Gandhi,
Square, Amrawati - 444605.
AWARD
(Dated: 28th August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar Road, Nagpur and the applicant, Shri. Prakash
Surpaithankar and Shri. Anil Pradhan for adjudication vide No. NGP-8(08)/2024-ID (RLCNGP) dt. 01/10/2024, with the
following issues framed: -
―Whether the action of the management of M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar
Road, Nagpur in terminating the service of their workman Shri. Prakash Surpaithankar and Shri. Anil
Pradhan W.E.F. 05.10.2023 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the Union/Workmen are entitled
to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Both parties are absent despite service of notices. The petitioner has not filed his
Statement of Claim till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the
petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6219
ORDER
―The action of the management of M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar Road,
Nagpur in terminating the service of their workman Shri. Prakash Surpaithankar and Shri. Anil Pradhan W.E.F.
05.10.2023 is just, fair and legal. The Union/Workmen are not entitled to any relief.‖
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1689.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मानव संसाधन अजधकारी, मेससड प्रताृ टेक्नोक्रेट्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
अध्यक्ष, भारतीय व्याृार संघ केंद्र, अमरावती के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/28/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/204-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1689.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/28/2024) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Human Resource Officer, M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur and The President, Center
of Indian Trade Union, Amrawati.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/204-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/28/2024
Date: 28.08.2025.
Party No.1:
The Human Resource Officer,
M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd.,
17/2, IT Park, Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar
Road, Nagpur - 440022
V/s.
Party No.2: The President,
Center of Indian Trade Union,
2nd Floor, Jaipurwala Tower, Gandhi,
Square, Amrawati - 444605.
6220
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Dated: 28th August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar Road, Nagpur and the applicant, Shri.
Washim Khan Pathan for adjudication vide No. NGP-8(10)/2024-ID (RLCNGP) dt. 01/10/2024, with the following
issues framed: -
―Whether the action of the management of M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar
Road, Nagpur in terminating the service of their workman Shri. Washim Khan Pathan W.E.F.
01.08.2023 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the Union/Workman is entitled to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Both parties are absent despite service of notices. The petitioner has not filed his
Statement of Claim till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the
petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The action of the management of M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar Road,
Nagpur in terminating the service of their workman Shri. Washim Khan Pathan W.E.F. 01.08.2023 is just, fair
and legal. The Union/Workman is not entitled to any relief.‖
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1690.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मानव संसाधन अजधकारी, मेससड प्रताृ टेक्नोक्रेट्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
अध्यक्ष, भारतीय व्याृार संघ केंद्र, अमरावती के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/29/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/205-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1690.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/29/2024) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Human Resource Officer, M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur and The President, Center
of Indian Trade Union, Amrawati.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/205-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/29/2024
Date: 13.08.2025.
Party No.1:
The Human Resource Officer,
M/s. Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd.,
17/2, IT Park, Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar
Road, Nagpur - 440022
V/s.
Party No.2: The President,
Center of Indian Trade Union,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6221
2nd Floor, Jaipurwala Tower, Gandhi
Square, Amravati - 444605
AWARD
(Dated: 13th August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of M/s. Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd and the applicant, Shri. Hemant Shilankar and Shri. Sanjay Mohadikar
for adjudication vide No. NGP/08(07)/2024-ID (RLCNGP) dt. 01/10/2024, with the following issues framed: -
―Whether the action of the management of M/s. Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd in terminating the service
of the workman Shri. Hemant Shilankar And Shri. Sanjay Mohadikar W.E.F. 05.10.2023 is just, fair and
legal? If not, to what relief the union/workmen are entitled to?
2.
Case is called out. Both the parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that the
notices have been served to the parties respectively but despite service of notices they are not present before the
court. The petitioner has not filed statement of claim till date. The petitioner has also not filed any other evidence to
prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The action of the management of M/s. Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd in terminating the service of the
workman Shri. Hemant Shilankar And Shri. Sanjay Mohadikar W.E.F. 05.10.2023 is just, fair and legal. The
workman is not entitled to any relief‖.
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1691.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मानव संसाधन अजधकारी, मेससड प्रताृ टेक्नोक्रेट्स प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
अध्यक्ष, भारतीय व्याृार संघ केंद्र, अमरावती के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/30/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/206-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1691.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/30/2024) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Human Resource Officer, M/s Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur and The President, Center
of Indian Trade Union, Amrawati.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/206-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/30/2024
Date: 19.08.2025.
Party No.1:
The Human Resource Officer,
M/s. Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd.,
17/2, IT Park, Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar
Road, Nagpur – 4400022.
6222
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s.
Party No.2: The President,
Centre of Indian Trade Union,
2nd Floor, Jaipurwala Tower, Gandhi
Square, Amravati - 444605
AWARD
(Dated: 19th August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Prasodi, Gayatri Nagar Road, Nagpur and the applicant, Shri. Laxman
Marode for adjudication vide No. NGP/8(05)/2024-ID(RLCNGP) dt. 01/10/2024, with the following issues framed: -
―Whether the action of the management of Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar Road,
Nagpur in terminating the service of the workman Shri. Laxman Marode W.E.F. 05.10.2023 is just, fair
and legal? If not, to what relief the Union/Workman is entitled to?
2.
Case is called out. Both parties are absent, despite service of notices, petitioner has not filed his Statement of
Claim till date. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved.
So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The action of the management of Pratap Technocrates Pvt. Ltd., Parsodi, Gayatri Nagar Road, Nagpur
in terminating the service of the workman Shri. Laxman Marode W.E.F. 05.10.2023 is just, fair and legal. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
(Justice (RETD.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1692.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मानव संसाधन प्रमुख, टाटा कंसल्टेंसी सर्ववसेज जलजमटेड, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री ृवन ससह,
नागृुर के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय नागृुर (संदभड
सं्या- सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/39/2022-23) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42025/07/2025/203-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1692.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/39/2022-23) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The HR Head, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Nagpur and Shri. Pawan Singh, Nagpur.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/203-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/39/2022-23
Date: 29.08.2025.
Party No.1:
The HR Head,
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.,
Mihan SEZ, Village – Dahegaon,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6223
Survey No. 72, Post – Khapri,
Nagpur - 440013.
V/s.
Party No.2: Shri. Pawan Singh,
Plot No. 61 Narmada Society,
Mahadev Ashram, Gorewada,
Nagpur - 440013
AWARD
(Dated: 29th August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of The HR Head, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., Mihan SEZ, Village – Dahegaon, Survey No. 72, Post –
Khapri, Nagpur & and the applicant, Shri. Pawan Singh for adjudication vide No. NGP/7(02)/2023-ID dt. 07.02.2023,
with the following issues framed: -
―Whether the workman (Shri Pawan Singh) was terminated from the services or forced to resign without
assigning any reason on 15.12.2021 by the management (Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.)? If so whether
the action of the management is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Shri. Rahul Pulewar, Legal Compliance Officer is present on behalf of respondent today
in court but on repeated calls no one is present on behalf of petitioner. Although, Statement of Claim and Written
Statement has been filed by the parties respectively but no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove
his case. The petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the
case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The termination of workman Shri Pawan Singh on 15.12.2021 was legal and justified. The workman is
not entitled to any relief.‖
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1693.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार क्षेत्रीय कायडकारी जनदेिक, आईआरडी, मुंबई; मु्य महाप्रबंधक, एनटीृीसी, नागृुर; महाप्रबंधक, मेससड यूरटजलटी
ृावरटेक जलजमटेड, ग्राउंड फ्लोर, नागृुर; श्री एस.के. ससह, मु्य जचदकत्सा अजधकारी, आयुष अस्ट्ृताल, नागृुर; प्रबंधक,
मेससड गौरी इन्फोटेक, नागृुर; प्रबंधक, मेससड गौरी इन्फोटेक, नागृुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और अध्यक्ष, मौदा जवज
प्रकल्ृ मजदूर संघ, नागृुर के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय नागृुर
(संदभड सं्या-सीजीआईटी/एनजीृी/12/2022-23) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,
प्रकाजित
करती हज l
[सं
-42011/184/2022-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6224
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1693.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/12/2022-23) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Regional Executive Director, IRD, Mumbai; The Chief General Manager, NTPC, Nagpur; The
General Manager, M/s Utility Powertech Ltd, Ground Floor, Nagpur; Shri S.K. Singh, Chief Medical Officer,
Ayush Hospital, Nagpur;The Manager, M/s Gauri Infotech, Nagpur;The Manager, M/s Gauri Infotech, Nagpur
and The President, Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur.
[No. L-42011/184/2022-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/12/2022-23
Date: 03.07.2025.
Party No.1:
1. The Regional Executive Director, IRD,
NTPC Ltd., 2nd Floor, Samradhi Venture Park,
MIDC Marol, Andheri (East), Chakla,
Mumbai – 400093.
2. The Chief General Manager,
NTPC, Mouda, Tah. – Mouda,
Nagpur – 441104.
3. The General Manager,
M/s Utility Powertech Ltd, Ground Floor,
Shopping Complex, Utkarsh Nagar, Mouda,
PO: Mouda, Nagpur – 441104.
4. Shri S.K. Singh, Chief Medical Officer,
Ayush Hospital, NTPC Mouda, Nagpur,
Pin – 441100.
5. The Manager,
M/s Gauri Infotech,
73, Shrikrishna Nagar, Nagpur – 440008.
6. The Manager,
M/s Gauri Infotech,
NTPC Mouda, Tah. – Mouda,
Nagpur – 441104.
V/s.
Party No.2:
The President,
Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh,
House of Sh. Prem Rodekar, Tarsa Road,
Kanhan, Tah-Parseoni,
Nagpur-441404.
AWARD
(Dated: 03rd July, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (―the Act‖ in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management of NTPC Mouda, M/s Gauri Infotech, Nagpur, and their
workman Miss Shabnam Khan, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-42011/184/2022 (IR(DU) dated 03.06.2022, with
the following schedule:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6225
―Whether the disengagement of Miss Shabnam Khan as physiotherapist w.e.f. 29.11.2020 by the
management of M/s Gauri Infotech, Nagpur as raised by Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur
vide letter dated 10.02.2021 is proper, legal and justified? If not, to what relief including reinstatement
the disputant is entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?
2.
Case is called out. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 Shri A.K. Neware is present before the Court. No
one is present on behalf of the petitioner as well as rest of the respondents despite service of notices. No statement of
claim and written statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. Petitioner is not coming to the Court
since 07.07.2022 It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the petitioner is not
proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The disengagement of Miss Shabnam Khan as physiotherapist w.e.f. 29.11.2020 by the management of
M/s Gauri Infotech, Nagpur as raised by Mouda Vij Prakalp Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur vide letter dated
10.02.2021 is proper, legal and justified. The disputant is not entitled to any relief.
(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1694.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार मेससड वसेड जडटेजक्टव एंड जसक्योररटीज प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, गुड़गांव, हररयाणा; डीएमआरसी, मेरो भवन, ददल्ली के
प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कजृल कुमार, ददल्ली के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण-
सह- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या 106/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज l
[सं
-42012/76/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1694.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 106/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s Varsed Detective and Securities Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana; DMRC, Metro Bhawan, Delhi and
Sh. Kapil Kumar, Delhi.
[No. L-42012/76/2017-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.106/2018
Sh. Kapil Kumar S/o Sh. Nand Lal, R/o H.No. 144, First Floor, Gali No.5, Nehru Gali, F-2 Block, West Sant Nagar,
Buradi, Delhi-110084.
…Claimant
Versus
1. M/s Varsed Detective and Securities Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 61, First Floor, Sector-18, Maruti Industrial Area Opposite
HIPA, Gurgaon, Haryana.
2.
DMRC, Metro Bhawan, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba Road, Delhi-110001.
…Management
6226
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-L-42012/76/2017
(IR(DU)) dated 29.01.2018 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 services of Sh. Kapil Kumar S/o Sh. Nand Lal from establishment of Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (DMRC) have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by M/s Varsed Detective and
Securities Pvt. Ltd. and if so, what relief is he entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?‟
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant.
3.
rebuttal written statement was also filed by both the managements. Thereafter, issues were framed. After that,
none appeared on behalf of the claimant despite serving notice to substantiate his claim.
4.
Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute award
is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the appropriate
government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Date: 18.07.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1695.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार जनदेिक, लासडन एंड टुब्रो जलजमटेड, नई ददल्ली; जनदेिक, मेससड एक्सेल जसक्योररटी, गुड़गांव; मु्य ृररयोजना
प्रबंधक, ददल्ली मेरो रेल कॉृोरेिन, नई ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री बृजृाल ससह एवं 7 अन्य, ददल्ली के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड
सं्या 169/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज !
[सं
-42011/154/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1695.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 169/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Director, Larsen & Toubro Ltd., New Delhi ; The Director, M/s Excel Security, Gurgaon; Chief Project
Manager, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, New Delhi and Sh. Brijpal Singh & 7 others, Delhi..
[No. L-42011/154/2017-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.169/2018
Sh. Brijpal Singh & 7 others Through Pragatisheel Mazdoor Sangh I-148 & 161, Karampura, Delhi-110016.
…Claimant
Versus
1. The Director, Larsen & Toubro Ltd., CC-17 Project, 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015.
2.
The Director, M/s Excel Security, Excel House, MG Road, Sukrali, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
3.
Chief Project Manager, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Opp. Inderlok Metro Station, Shahzada Bagh,
New Delhi-110035.
…Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6227
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter
No-L-42011/154/2017 (IR(DU)) dated 06.04.2018 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 workmen Sh. Brijjpal Singh and seven others (Listed in Part-II of FoC), employed as Security
Guards/Gunmen from 01.08.2014 to 28.07.2015 by M/s Excel Security under the contract with M/s Larsen &
Toubro Ltd. in the establishment of CPM-2, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation have been illegally and/or
unjustifiably terminated? If so, what relief is the workmen entitled to and what directions are necessary in this
respect?‖
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement
of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Claim statement was filed. Rebuttal written statement was also filed Management No. 1 and 3.
3.
After that, none appeared on behalf of the claimant to substantiate his claim.
4.
Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute award
is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the appropriate
government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Date: 30.05.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1696.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार प्राचायड, राजकुमारी अमृत कौर नर्ससग कॉलेज, नई ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती रोजी, नई
ददल्ली के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-1 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट(संदभड सं्या
241/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42012/66/2017-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1696.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 241/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Principal, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing, New Delhi and Mrs. Roji, New Delhi.
[No. L-42012/66/2017-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.241/2018
Mrs. Roji W/o Sh. Pradeep Sahota, R/o House No. 8-A/93, DDA, Janta Flats, Trilokpuri, New Delhi-110024.
…Claimant
Versus
The Principal, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024.
…Management
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-L-42012/66/2017
(IR(DU)) dated 28.08.2018 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:
6228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
„Whether the services of the workman Mrs. Roji W/o Sh. Pradeep Sahota who was working on the post of
warden w.e.f. 16.08.2013 have been terminated w.e.f. 21.12.2015 illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
Management (Principal, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of Nursing Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi), and if so to
what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?‟
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Claim statement was filed on behalf of the claimant.
3. Rebuttal written statement was also filed by the management. Thereafter, claimant stopped appearing to substantiate
her claim.
4.
Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute award is
passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the appropriate
government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Date: 21.07.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 15 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1697.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय
सरकार क्षेत्रीय जनदेिक, इंददरा गांधी राष्ट्रीय मुि जवश्वजवद्यालय, क्षेत्रीय केंद्र-II, राजघाट, नई ददल्ली के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध
जनयोजकों और श्री प्रदीृ कुमार, ददल्ली के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-
1 नई ददल्ली ृंचाट (संदभड सं्या 297/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं
-42011/69/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 15th September, 2025
S.O. 1697.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 297/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – I New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Center-II, Raj Ghat, New Delhi and Sh.
Pardeep Kumar, Delhi.
[No. L-42011/69/2018-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 297/2018
Sh. Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, rept. through General Udyog Karamchari Union, B-82, Gali No. 7, West Karawal
Nagar, Delhi-110094.
…Claimant
Versus
Regional Director, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Regional Center-II, Raj Ghat, New Delhi-110002.
…Management
AWARD
1. In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-L-42011/69/2018
(IR(DU)) dated 25.10.2018 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:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6229
SCHEDULE
„„Whether the claim of the union against the termination of services of Sh. Pardeep Kumar, attendant group D
w.e.f. 25.04.2017 (Working since 2.5.2013) upon the management of Regional Center-II, Raj Ghat, New Delhi
and demand of reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of services along with all other attendant
benefits is legal and justified? If so, what benefits he is entitled to and what directions are necessary in the
case?”
2.
In the reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt of
the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Claimant union opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management. Both parties had put
their appearances through Shri Pradeep Kaushik and Ms. Harsh Chachra respectively. However, claimant had not filed
statement of claim. On 30.01.2019, it was submitted on behalf of the claimant that claimant had filed an application
before the appropriate Government for correction of name of the union. However, no corrigendum has been received.
Claimant has not been appearing in this tribunal since the year 2021 though, notice was issued to him for appearance.
4.
In these circumstances, when the claimant is not pursuing his case, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to
pass a ‗No Dispute/Claim‘ award. Let this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for publication.
Date: 05.08.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 16 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1698.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
-
सह
-
] चंडीगढ़
ds iapkV (
20/2017) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22011/7/2017-आईआर (सी. एम.-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2025
S.O. 1698.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Chandigarh-2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food
Corporation of India and their workmen received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025
[No. L-22011/7/2017– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.20/2017
Registered on:-21.03.2018
Food Corporation of India Shramik Union, through its General Secretary, 2715, 2nd floor, Gali No.7, Chuna Mandi, Near
Sangatrashan Police Chowki, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055.
-------- Union
6230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1.
The General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Sector 31-A Bay No.34-38, Chandigarh.
2.
Area Manager, FCI, District Office, SCO 48, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar City-144001.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. S C Gupta, AR for union.
None for respondent no.1 and 2.
Award : 25.07.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.L-22011/7/2017 (IR(CM-II) dated 28.02.2018, under 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 the management of FCI in converting FCI, FSD, Banga and its concerned Rail Head
and Nawanshahar railhead working under departmental workers system into contract labour system and
removing departmental labour from there is legal, fair and justified? If not, what relief the union and
workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
1. The matter is fixed for cross examination of witness of union. However, today, AR for union vide his separate
statement stated that as per telephonically instructions from the General Secretary of the Union Mr. Umesh Gupta, he
withdraws the present reference. The same may be returned to the Ministry as withdrawn.
2. In view of the statement of AR for union, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'.
Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the present reference.
3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 16 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1699.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj सजन्य अस्ट्ृताल, अंबाला कैंट,ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa
-
ह
-
] चंडीगढ़ 1, ds iapkV (
80/2014,81/2014,82/2014,83/2014,84/2014/85/2014,86/2014 और 87/2014) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-14012/06/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
[सं. एल-14012/07/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
[सं. एल-14012/08/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
[सं. एल-14012/09/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
[सं. एल-14012/10/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
[सं. एल-14012/11/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
[सं. एल-14012/12/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
[सं. एल-14012/13/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6231
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2025
S.O. 1699.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 80/2014,81/2014,82/2014,83/2014,84/2014/85/2014,86/2014 and
87/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,Chandigarh-1 as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Military Hospital,Ambala Cantt, and their workmen
received by the Central Government on 08/09/2025
[No. L-14012/06/2014-IR (DU)]
[No. L-14012/07/2014-IR (DU)]
[No. L-14012/08/2014-IR (DU)]
[No. L-14012/09/2014-IR (DU)]
[No. L-14012/10/2014-IR (DU)]
[No. L-14012/11/2014-IR (DU)]
[No. L-14012/12/2014-IR (DU)]
[No. L-14012/13/2014-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Presiding Officer: Sh. Brajesh Kumar Gautam, H.J.S.
1. ID No. 80/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Tila Rani W/o Sh. Vishnu Bahadur, R/o H.No.658, Housing Board
Colony, Sector 7, Ambala City, Haryana. Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/06/2014-IR (DU) dated 30.04.2014.
2. ID No. 81/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Sunita W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar R/o H.No.249, B.C, Bazaz, Ambala City.
Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/07/2014-IR (DU) dated 30.04.2014.
3. ID No. 82/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Meena W/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o H.No.152, Durand Road, Near Church,
MES Pain Tanki, Ambala Cantt, Ambala, Haryana. Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/08/2014-IR (DU) dated
30.04.2014.
4. ID No. 83/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Kirna W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar R/o H.No.751, Sikligar Mohalla, Ram
Bag Road, Ambala Cantt, Ambala, Haryana. Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/09/2014-IR (DU) dated
30.04.2014.
5. ID No. 84/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Seema W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar R/o H.No.47, Shalimar Bag Road,
Ambala Cantt, Ambala, Haryana. Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/10/2014-IR (DU) dated 30.04.2014.
6. ID No. 85/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Soma Devi W/o Sh. Ramesh Kumar R/o H.No.101, Topkhana Bazar,
Ambala Cantt., Ambala Haryana. Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/11/2014-IR (DU) dated 30.04.2014.
7. ID No. 86/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Sushma W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar R/o H.No.733, Sikligar Mohalla,
Ambala Cantt, Ambala, Haryana. Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/12/2014-IR (DU) dated 30.04.2014.
8. ID No. 87/2014, Registered on 09.05.2014, Geeta Rani W/o Sh. Arun Kumar R/o H.No.747, Ram Bag Road,
Ambala Cantt, Ambala, Haryana. Arising out of Reference No.L-14012/13/2014-IR (DU) dated 30.04.2014.
...........Workmen
Versus
The commandant, Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt., Ambala (Haryana).
........Management
Sh. Bir Singh Pathania AR for Workman
Ms. Veena Bhutani AR for Management
Judgment reserved on 17th July, 2025
Judgment Pronounced on 14th August, 2025
6232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
JUDGMENT/ AWARD
1.
Above noted all industrial dispute cases have arisen and registered on the basis of similar nature of References
as received from the Government of India, Labour Ministry. In all these cases the opposite party is same, cause of action
also similar and same set of facts have been pleaded in respective claim statements of the workmen, therefore these all
seven Industrial Dispute cases are being decided by a common Judgment/ Award.
2.
It is also important to be noted that all these cases which were registered on 9th May in the year 2014 on the
basis of separate references of similar nature and of same date i.e. 30.04.2014 raising same issue of legality and fairness
in respect of termination of services of above noted workmen by the management of Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt,
Haryana. It is to be noted that vide order dated 25.08.2015 above noted all the Industrial Dispute Cases were
consolidated making ID Case No.80/2014 titled as Tila Rani Versus Military Hospital as leading case.
3.
The case of Workmen/ Petitioners- From the perusal of individual claim statements in these cases it appears
that workmen Tila Rani was appointed on 01.01.2007 , Sunita appointed on 05.06.2008, Meena appointed on
01.08.2006, Kirna appointed on 01.08.2006, Seema appointed on 01.08.2006, Soma Devi appointed on 03.09.2006,
Sushma appointed on 02.02.2007 and Geeta Rani appointed on 03.08.2006 as Ward Sahayika on different dates noted
hereinabove on temporary basis. The services of workmen with the respondent/ management were on daily wages basis
but they worked without any break for several years and were paid less than the prescribed rates. They were assured at
the time of initial appointment/ joining that they could be regularized as and when vacancies sanctioned. The Military
Hospital was taking work for 9 hours a day from 8:00 AM to 17:00 PM. No steps were taken to regularize their services
although regular post of Ward Sahayikas were existing. The workmen/ petitioners made several representations before
Military Hospital Authorities from time to time to enhance the wages and regularize but refused. Military Hospital
Authorities were requested several times for enhancement of wages and regularization of services as promised at the
time of joining but every time instead of taking any action on the repeated request the workman were threatened
termination of their services. Further case of workman has been that they approached Labour Welfare Officer cum
Reconciliation Officer and Authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Ambala with a prayer to direct the
Military Hospital to pay minimum rates of wages but prayer has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the concerned
authority. Vide letter dated 19.05.2009 a cyclostyled agreement was directed by Military Hospital to be signed by these
workman but said agreement was not signed and submitted, whereupon the workman were threatened with non
regularization and termination of their services. It is further case of workman that on 01.06.2009 these workman received
one line order that their services were terminated w.e.f. 19.05.2009 and they were not allowed to enter into Military
Hospital premises. Neither salary for the month of May, 2009 was given nor any show cause notice was issued and
without holding any enquiry with malafide intention, taking arbitrary action practicing unfair labour practice the
workmen were terminated in gross violation of principle of natural justice. According to these workmen there is no
compliance of provisions contained in Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Dispute Act as neither any notice nor any pay in
lieu of notice was given to them. It is stated in the claim petition that Ward Sahayika who were employed subsequent to
the appointment of these workmen and were junior to them in service have been retained which is in violation of
provisions contained in Section 25 G, 25 H of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to these workmen the termination of
their services is wholly illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the Sections 25 F, 25 G, 25 H of the ID
Act as well as against the provisions of Minimum Wages Act and principles of natural justice. In all above noted
Industrial Dispute Cases the Workmen have sought relief of payment of their respective dues ranging from Rs.60,000/-
to Rs.70,000/-, except in case of ID No.81/2014 (Smt. Sunita), wherein the claim of Rs.28,000/- has been made
alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date when the amount became due till actual payment. Reinstatement with
full back wages has also been prayed in all above noted Industrial Dispute Cases.
4.
The case of Management- In response to the notices issued in above noted all the cases, the respondent-
management appeared and contested the claim of these workmen by filing reply/ written statement in all the cases. The
contents of reply/ written statements filed on behalf of contesting management is by and large same in all the above
noted cases. According to the management this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference and claim
of the workman as Military Hospital, Ambala is not covered under the definition of Industry as per Industrial Dispute
Act. The claims of workmen are time barred. They were engaged only upto 18.05.2009 as contractual labourer and claim
has been raised in year 2014 which is hopelessly time barred. The further case of management has been that the claim of
workmen is also barred by doctrine of res-judicata, as they have preferred different petitions before different Judicial
Forums and they could not get any relief. According to management these applicants had previously filed a petition
before Central Administrative, Tribunal Bench, Chandigarh on same cause of action and it was dismissed by Central
Administrative Tribunal Bench vide order dated 09.05.2013. Labour Welfare Officer cum Reconciliation Officer and the
authority appointed under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Ambala had also dismissed the applications of these workers/
workmen for payment of minimum wages vide order dated 30.11.2010. These workmen also approached Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Karnal and the said Assistant Labour Commissioner Central vide order dated 21.02.2014
recorded that no amicable settlement could be arrive between the parties, hence the conciliatory efforts ended in failure.
It is also stated by management that earlier these workmen had filed claim petition under Section 33 C (2) of ID Act,
1947 and same have also been dismissed. While replying to the para wise contents of claimants workman it is stated by
the management in its reply that the workman were engaged purely on temporary and contractual basis. They wilfully
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6233
became absent without any prior intimation and therefore their engagement was terminated. It has been denied by the
management that working hours from 08:00 Hours to 17:00 Hours daily. It is denied by the management that less
payment was made to them. According to management as per agreement the amount was being paid to them. At no point
of time respondent management had promised to regularize them. Further case of management has been that the worker/
workmen were never engaged on regular basis and they were never selected as per rules of Government of India.
Management has denied making of any applications/ representations to the Military Hospital Authorities by these
workmen for enhancement of wages. It is denied that at any point of time Military Hospital Authorities has threated the
workmen for terminating their services as alleged by them in their respective claim petitions. According to contesting
respondent management Military Hospital is not Industry and therefore, question of compliance of Section 25 Industrial
Dispute Act does not arise. It is denied that workmen were terminated with malafide intentions and they were cheated.
The worker/ Workmen had already been paid as per Agreement and work done by them for the period they remained
engaged on temporary basis no cause of action is there in favour of these workmen and they are not entitled for any relief
as prayed by them in respective claim petitions.
5.
Notably against the reply/ written statement filed on behalf of contesting management, replications on behalf of
these workmen have been filed reiterating the same factual contents in all the respective replications. It may be however,
noticed that above noted workmen have admitted in their respective replications that they had approached various
judicial forums for redressal of their grievances including application under Section 33 C (2) of the ID Act which were
dismissed.
6.
Issues- Since all these cases have arisen on the references received from Ministry of Labour, Government of
India and therefore, the terms of reference itself is the issue for adjudication in present case which may be recast as
follows:-
―Whether the action of the management of the commandant, Military Hospital, Ambala Cantt, Ambala in
terminating the services of above noted workmen w.e.f. 19.05.2009 is just fair & legal? If not, to what relief the
workmen are entitled to?‟
7.
Evidence- During hearing of these cases although all the above noted workmen have filed their respective
affidavited examination in chief but cross examination of only Tila Rani the workman in leading case ID No.08/2014 has
been done. Therefore, the evidence of only Tila Rani on behalf of all the workman shall be treated as evidence on record
for the purpose of deciding the present case. It appears that despite the opportunity given no evidence has been adduced
on behalf of management. It may be mentioned that on direction of this Tribunal on an application for summoning
certain records which were in possession of management some of the records have been produced and brought on record
by the management which are marked as Ex. R-1 i.e. (Order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 09.05.2013), Ex.
R-2 i.e. (Order of Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Ambala dated 30.11.2010), Ex. R-3 i.e. (Report of
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central dated 21.02.2014) and Ex. R-4 i.e. (Letter dated 19.05.2009 by Military
Hospital and attendance sheets of all the workman).
8.
Arguments of Parties: It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of claimants-workmen in all
these cases that the relationship of employer-employees is not denied by respondent management and management has
admitted that these workers/ workmen worked from their date of appointment till they were terminated in May, 2009.
According to Ld. Counsel the services of these workers have been illegally terminated in violation of Section 25 F, 25 G
of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Ld. Counsel for these workmen has heavily placed his reliance upon reported
decisions of Supreme Court reported as Dharangadhara Chemicals Works Ltd. Versus State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957,
Supreme Court Page 264; Ram Singh and Others Versus Union Territory Chandigarh and others, Civil Appeal
No.3166/2022, decided on 07.11.2003 and in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Union of India and others (2007) 1,
Supreme Court Cases, Page 630. The Ld. Counsel for the workman further argued that Military Hospital is well covered
under the definition of term Industry as the triple test laid down by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case
to determine whether an establishment is an Industry or not completely satisfied in the present case. According to Ld.
Counsel the Military Hospital is performing systematic medical and administrative services and hence it is qualified to
be an industry under the Industrial Dispute Act. It is further argued that principle of respondent No.-judicata does not
apply because of dismissal of claim by Central Administrative Tribunal as the order has not been passed on merits.
According to Ld. Counsel similarly before Assistant Labour Commissioner dispute regarding termination and
regularization was raised but no decision has been given on merit only failure of conciliation process has been reported
and therefore principle of res-judicata is not permissible in present case. It is also argued that despite the opportunity
given management has not examined any evidence against the claim of above noted workman. It is also argued that
payment of salary of these claimants have been made out of regimental funds and this fact is admitted by respondent
management and therefore, they cannot deny the due payment of workman for the work they had done. It is further
argued that although the claimants were engaged on a temporary basis as contractual laborers but as per the Government
of India, Ministry of Defense Policy contained in Office Memorandum dated 12.11.2010 casual workers could be
engaged for casual seasons and for which regular post cannot be created. According to Ld. Counsel the respondent
management was adopting unfair labour practice and was not giving equal pay for equal work to these workmen. It is
also argued that Supreme Court decision in Uma Devi case does not override power of Labour Court under Section 30 of
6234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Industrial Dispute Act, where violation has been done. According to Ld. Counsel in view of the available material on
the record Act of management be declared as unjust, unfair and illegal and these workmen may be ordered to be
reinstated with full back wages.
9.
Per Contra Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of management argued and submitted that these workers/
workmen are only contractual labourers and not regular appointees. Their services came to an end because of their
absence from duty in year 2009 itself and they have raised dispute in year 2014 which is highly time barred. In addition
to this submission Ld. Counsel for respondent management has also pointed out that Military Hospital is not an Industry
and therefore the claim cannot be entertained by this Tribunal. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel that the similar nature
of claim raised before Central Administrative Tribunal has already been rejected and these employees/ workman
concealing this fact of rejection by Central Administrative Tribunal has filed the claim petition before this Court which is
itself a ground for rejection of claim. The contract between workers and the management itself was very much clear that
they would be paid only that much amount mentioned in the said contractual agreement and it is wrong to say that there
has been violation of Minimum Wages Act. The Ld. Counsel has also argued that the authority under the Minimum
Wages Act has rightly rejected the claim of these workers. It is further argued that in the evidence on behalf of these
workmen there had been admission of the fact of dismissal of cases by CAT and by Minimum Wages Act-Authority and
there is no other evidence against these documents. It is also pointed out that even one of the workmen who has filed
claim before this Tribunal is already engaged as Peon in Session Court and it is admitted in the cross examination of
Tilla Rani itself, how a claimant who is already in Government Job can raise a claim in the present case. The Ld.
Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Management has placed his reliance on reported decisions of Supreme Court
of India the Fertilizers and Chemicals Tranvancore Ltd. & Anr. Versus General Secretary FACT Employees
Association & Ors, Punjab & Haryana High Court decision Avtar Singh Versus State of Punjab, Supreme Court
decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Versus Bharat Singh Jhala and Supreme Court decision in Nanu Ram
Versus Mahesh Chander. According to Ld. Counsel for the respondent management reference may be dismissed and
workmen in above noted cases are not entitled for any relief.
FINDINGS
10.
It is admitted fact that above noted all the workmen were initially given appointment as a Part Time female
Para Medical Staffs on daily wages basis provided they accept the conditions stipulated in the recommendation of the
Board dated 29.07.2006. In the said recommendation of the Board dated 29.07.2006 name of all the above noted
workmen in above noted cases were mentioned. As per the condition No.1 daily wages rate was fixed as Rs.50/- per day.
Other conditions in the said recommendation of Board show that there were no entitlement of any leave or weekly off
and as per condition No.4 all the female Para Medical Staff employed on daily wages were employed for few days only
and appointment will not be converted into temporary/ adhoc/ daily basis or permanent appointment. Further condition in
the said recommendation of appointment shows that these workers were not entitled for any T.A., D.A., House Rent or
any patient care allowance except daily wages fixed by the Hospital Authorities. They were also not entitled for any
service gratuity, Insurance etc. As per stipulation No.7 of the conditions, the job can be terminated without any prior
notice. It appears that knowing all these conditions, the workmen have accepted these terms and conditions and
thereafter, they have been appointed as female paramedical staffs by the Military Hospital. As per documents which are
attendance sheets of these workers it appears that some of them had worked from Month of September, 2006 and others
from January, 2007 but they worked only upto 20.05.2009. The attendance sheet of Month of May, 2009 shows that
workman Tila Rani became absent from 11.05.2009 before passing the Termination Order, so far as claim of payment of
less amount than minimum wage is concerned the recommendation for appointment itself shows that only Rs.50/- per
day shall be daily wages and therefore it can‘t be said that it was payment against Minimum Wages Act. It appears that
the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Ambala had rejected claim of all these workmen for payment
of Minimum Wages vide order dated 30.11.2010 and this order of rejection has been brought on record as Ex.R-2 which
is admitted by all the workmen also. It further appears that all these workmen had approached Central Administrative
Tribunal by filing case No.532-HR-2011 and they had pleaded before Central Administrative Tribunal that these
applicants are daily wagers and they had applied for quashment of steps under way at the hands of respondent to make
direct recruitment to the post on which they were working before their termination by impugned order dated 19.05.2009.
The Central Administrative Tribunal Bench, Chandigarh presided over by Hon‘ble Justice Mr. S.D. Anand Judicial
Member and Hon‘ble Mr. Ranbir Singh Administrative Member has held vide Paragraph 10 of the Decision dated
09.05.2013 that ‗there is plethora of documentation to prove that the applicants herein came to be appointed as Daily
Wagers. There is not even an averment, much less proof thereof, that their appointment came about in pursuance of a
public notice. By the very nature of things, ad-hoc/contractual/ daily wage appointment of the indicated category are
made in order to meet the requirement in a given case. Regularization of their services may come about only in
pursuance of a policy formulation at the hands of the Competent Authority. There is no such policy framed by the
competent authority in this case. For that reason as well, we do not find any merit in the claim raised by the applicant
herein‘.
11.
From the Judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal Bench Chandigarh it is clear that order of termination as
well as their prayer for prohibiting the respondent management from recruitment to the posts have been well considered
and has been rejected and therefore submission on behalf of workman that order of Central Administrative Tribunal was
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6235
not on merit cannot be accepted. Not only this as pointed out hereinabove even their claim for minimum wages before
the competent authority under Minimum Wages Act is also rejected. It appears that the orders passed by competent
authority under Minimum Wages Act and the order of Central Administrative Tribunal became final as there is nothing
on record to show that these orders were further challenged before any Forum. So far as claim of workmen before this
Tribunal is concerned. It is not stated specifically or proved by these workmen that their initial appointment was in
pursuance to a public notice as the establishment where they were recommended to work as Ward Sahayika/ female Para
Medical Staff is a Central Government Defense Ministry controlled establishment and any appointment without any
public notice is in violation of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. Apart from it the recommendation of Board
which is contained in Ex. R-4 shows that the recommendation for appointment as a part time female para medical staff
was made only for few days and was on a fixed daily wage basis at the rate of Rs.50/- per day. The recommendation
itself stipulated a condition that services can be terminated without any prior notice by the Hospital Authorities. In above
view of the matter these workmen/ claimants are not entitled to any relief and the action by respondent management in
terminating services of these workmen is held not to be illegal. In the reported decision of High Court of Punjab &
Haryana, Chandigarh-CWP No.20093-2003 date of decision 05.04.2022 Avtar Singh Versus State of Punjab it has been
held that where employees appointed on contractual basis without any advertisement do not have right to regularization.
The office memorandum of Government of India, Ministry of Defense dated 12.11.2010 after referring earlier office
memorandum dated 11.12.2006 has clearly states that casual workers and persons on daily wages should not be recruited
for work of regular nature, however, they could be engaged only for work of causal or seasonal or intermittent nature or
for work which is not for full time wager for which regular post cannot be created. In the present case it appears that the
competent authorities has created regular posts and had taken step to make recruitment to those posts which were
challenged by these workmen before Central Administrative Tribunal but there challenge was rejected. It is clear from
the claim statements that concealing their earlier judicial proceedings taken by them for their grievance, the present claim
petition has been filed, however, they have admitted in their evidence that they had earlier approached Central
Administrative Tribunal also for the same relief. In above view of the matter it can be held that these workmen have not
approached this Tribunal with clean hands and on this ground itself their claim can be held to be not maintainable and
liable to be rejected.
12.
In the light of discussion made hereinabove and in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, all the
references of similar nature of same date as noted in title of cases hereinabove are decided against the workmen/
claimants and it is held that no illegality has been committed by respondent management in passing the impugned
termination order dated 19.05.2009.
13.
It is therefore-
ORDERED
That all the above noted ID Cases ID No. ID No. 80/2014- Tila Rani, ID No. 81/2014- Sunita, ID No. 82/2014- Meena,
ID No. 83/2014- Kirna, ID No. 84/2014- Seema, ID No. 85/2014- Soma Devi, ID No. 86/2014- Sushma, ID No. 87/2014
Geeta Rani are being dismissed without passing any award in favour of respective claimants-workmen.
14.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
Dated: 14.08.2025
B.K. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 16 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1700.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj डब्ल्यू.सी.एल.d
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] नागृुर ds iapkV (
10/2022-23) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/55/2022-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
6236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2025
S.O. 1700.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2022-23) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
M/s.W.C.L, and received by the Central Government on 9/09/2025.
[No. L-22012/55/2022– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/10/22-23
Date: 18.08.2025.
Party No.1:
The Sub Area Manager,
Silewara Sub – Area of WCL,
Po- Silewara, Distt. – Nagpur.
Pin- 441107
V/s.
Party No.2: The General Secretary, Rastrhiya Koyala
Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),
Head Office – WCL Headquarter Complex,
Telankhedi Road, Nagpur- 440001
AWARD
(Dated: 18th August, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Western Coalfields Limited and the applicant, Shri. Nikhil Sudhakar Kakde for adjudication vide
No. L-22012/55/2022 IR(CR-II) dt. 03/06/2022, with the following issues framed: -
for granting employment to Shri. Nikhil Sudhakar Kakde dependent Son of Late Sudhakar Ramjee on
compassionate ground under the provision s of the NCWA is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief
dependent of Late Sudhakar Ramjee is entitled to?
2.
Case is called out. Shri. Shishir Dongre learned counsel has put his appearance on behalf of respondent
and filed his Vakalatnama today in court, which is taken on record but, none is present on behalf of petitioner. From
perusal of record, it is apparent that petitioner is not responding and attending the court since 13/10/2022 and no
statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner till date. The petitioner has not filed any other evidence to prove his
case. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The demand of the Union {Rastriya Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC)} for granting employment to
Shri. Nikhil Sudhakar Kakde dependent Son of Late Sudhakar Ramjee on compassionate ground under the
provision s of the NCWA is illegal and unjustified. The dependent of Late Sudhakar Ramjee is not entitled to any
relief‖.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 16 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1701.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/24/2019-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6237
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2025
S.O. 1701.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.I.D. No. 21/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8/9/2025.
[No. L-22012/24/2019– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 21 OF 2019
PARTIES:
Supal Bouri
Son of late Sital Bouri
Vs.
Management of Nabo Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Workman:
Mr. Milan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Advocate
For the Management of ECL: Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
22.07.2025
AWARD
On failure of conciliation proceeding, the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of
powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (14 of 1947), vide its Order No. L-22012/24/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 19.03.2019 has been pleased to refer the
following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Ghanashyam Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited
(hereinafter referred as ECL) and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management in denial of employment to Sri Supal Bouri Son of Late Sital Bouri,
Ex-Looseman of Ghanashyam Colliery of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is justified or nor? If not, what relief
Sri Supal Bouri is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/24/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 19.03.2019 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 21 of 2019 was registered on
02.04.2019 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and
submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.
2.
Supal Bouri, the dependent son of Sital Bouri, the deceased workman filed written statement on 13.06.2023.
Management contested the case by filing this written statement on 21.12.2022. Fact of the case in brief is that Sital Bouri
was employed as a Looseman, bearing U.M. No. – 564428 at Ghanashyam Colliery under Kajora Area, ECL. Sital Bouri
expired on 10.08.1990 at Kalla Central Hospital, Asansol while he was in the service of the company. According to the
National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA), the dependent son of the deceased workman is entitled to employment. Supal
Bouri being the son of late Sital Bouri applied for employment under ECL, according to the provisions of clause 9.4.0 of
NCWA. Management held screening test and pre-employment medical examination of the dependent son. Proposal for
his employment was forwarded to the headquarters of ECL. However, the management regretted the claim for
6238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employment of Supal Bouri after 28 years from the death of his father by issuing letter No. ECL/CMD/C-6B/EMPL/ED-
1507/18/95 dated 19.03.2018. According to the dependent son of the workman, the management of ECL delayed the
matter by raising objection that Sital Bouri had two wives. Clarification sought for by ECL was submitted and screening
test was conducted, where relevant documents were filed by the dependent son. Police verification was held at the
instance of the management to establish the relationship between Sital Bouri and Supal Bouri. After being satisfied with
claim for employment, a medical examination was held and Supal Bouri was declared fit for employment. Clarification
was sought for by the authority through letter No. KA/Dy.CPM/C-6/35/1447 dated 10.11.2010 which was complied. The
management asked for further clarification vide letter No. KA/GM(P)/C-6/35/2038 dated 21.02.2012 which was also
complied. The management finally regretted the claim for employment on account of delay. The dependent son of Sital
Bouri, by raising this Industrial Dispute, has claimed for his employment under the company as per NCWA and back
wages from the date of submission of claim for employment.
3.
The management of ECL filed this written statement through Agent, Ghanashyam Colliery wherein it is
admitted that Sital Bouri was a permanent employee of ECL and posted at Ghanashyam Colliery as a looseman. The
workman expired on 10.08.1990 in harness. According to the management, the Industrial Dispute has been raised before
the ALC in 2018 i.e. after lapse of twenty eight years from the death of Sital Bouri and the same having failed has been
referred to this Tribunal twenty nine years after the death of employee. Relying upon a decision of M/s.Eastern
Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar & Others (Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 2009), it is contended that Hon‘ble Court
disapproved employment to the dependents on compassionate ground after passage of long years and held that such
dispute was a stale one and should not be considered for conciliation. According to the management of ECL, Supal Bouri
applied for his employment for the first time on 10.09.1996, six years after the death of his father. Further case of ECL is
that in the service record excerpt of Sital Bouri, name of his wives were recorded as Rati Bouri and Gedari Bouri. It is
inter alia contended that Supal Bouri initially submitted an affidavit that Rati Bouri and Gedari Bouri are same and
identical person and later he submitted documents where Gedari Bouri was mentioned as first wife and Rati Bouri as
second wife. Despite confusion regarding the number of wives left behind by the deceased, the proposal for employment
for Supal Bouri was processed and the dependents of Sital Bouri were directed to submit documents/clarifications
regarding certain irregularities/shortcomings by issuance of letter dated 21.02.2012 and the reply was submitted by the
dependents after lapse of five years on 07.04.2017, which indicates that dependents were not seriously interested with
any employment on compassionate ground. Management contended that the action taken by management in not
providing employment to the dependents of Sital Bouri is justified and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
4.
The point for consideration in this case is whether Supal Bouri is entitled to employment as a dependent son of
Sital Bouri and whether the action of the management in denying employment to Supal Bouri is proper and justified?
5.
In order to substantiate his case, Supal Bouri has filed an affidavit-in-chief and has been cross examined by the
management. Brief substance of his affidavit-in-chief is that his father expired on 10.08.1990 while he was in service of
ECL and his mother Gedari Bouri expired on 17.04.2011. Sunil Bouri, the brother of Supal Bouri expired on 12.11.2006.
He further stated that his name is recorded in Service Record Excerpt of the deceased employee. It is averred in
paragraph six (6) of his affidavit that in the beginning Gedari Bouri applied for her employment but the headquarters of
ECL issued a letter to her dated 29.12.1994 communicating their disability to provide her employment. Gedari Bouri
thereafter applied on 15.09.1995 before the Agent, Ghanashyam Colliery to provide employment to Supal Bouri, the son
as she was suffering from incurable disease. Supal Bouri also claimed employment in place of his father by submitting
an application and a letter dated 07.12.1996 was issued where he was called for Initial Medical Examination by Area
Medical Officer. The proposal for his employment was returned through letter dated 20.11.2007. Several queries were
made to which he submitted his replies. Ultimately through letter dated 19.03.2018, the proposal for employment of
Supal Bouri was regretted without any cogent reasons.
In course of his evidence, the workman witness produced the following documents:
(i)
Copy of death certificate of Sital Bouri is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of death certificate of Gedari Bouri is produced as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of death certificate of Sunil Bouri is produced as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of Service Record Excerpt of Sital Bouri is produced as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of Application dated 15.09.1995 submitted by Gedari Bouri is produced as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of Application dated 07.12.1996 for holding an Initial Medical Examination of Supal Bouri is
produced as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of letter dated 19.03.2018 regretting the claim for employment of Supal Bouri produced as
Exhibit W-7.
In cross-examination, the workman witness deposed that Rita Bouri is second wife of Sital Bouri. During lifetime of
Gedari Bouri, his father married Rati Bouri as the second wife. Witness denied that he is not entitled to employment as
the dependent son.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6239
6.
Management examined Proloy Dasgupta as MW-1. An affidavit-in-chief is filed stating that Supal Bouri
applied for his employment in 1996, six years after the death of his father. It is further stated that in the Service Record
Excerpt of Sital Bouri, name of his two wives Gedari Bouri and Rati Bouri are mentioned. Initially, Sital Bouri
submitted an Indemnity Bond and later in an affidavit he submitted that Gedari Bouri and Rati Bouri are the same and
identical person. In paragraph six, the management witness averred that while the case for employment was under
progress, a legal notice was served in the office by one of the dependents of Sital Bouri which showed that the
dependents of Sital Bouri had a family dispute till 2011. Witness stated that some clarifications were sought for by the
higher authority on 21.02.2012 and reply was submitted by the dependents after five years on 07.04.2017. Witness
claimed that the Industrial Dispute has been raised twenty nine years after death of Sital Bouri and the action taken by
the management in regretting the claim for employment is proper and justified.
During his examination-in-chief, the management witness produced the following documents:
(i)
Copy of death certificate of Sital Bouri is produced as Exhibit M-1.
(ii)
Copy of Service Record Excerpt of Sital Bouri is produced as Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of death certificate of Sital Bouri issued by Central Hospital, Kalla is produced as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of Application dated 10.04.1996 submitted by Gedari Bouri for providing employment to Supal
Bouri is produced as Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of Application dated 10.04.1996 submitted by Supal Bouri is produced as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of Indemnity Bond is produced as Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of screening report dated 07.09.1996 is produced as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Copy of Affidavit dated 25.07.2008 of Gedari Bouri stating that Gedari Bouri and Rati Bouri are one
and same person is produced as Exhibit M-8.
(ix)
Copy of legal notice dated 12.08.2011 issued on behalf of Gedari Bouri is produced as Exhibit M-9.
(x)
Copy of Indemnity Bond dated 16.03.2017 submitted by Supal Bouri stating that Gedari Bouri and
Rati Bouri are two different persons is produced as Exhibit M-10.
(xi)
Copy of letter issued by Manager (Pers.) (Empl.) dated 21.02.2012 seeking clarification is produced as
Exhibit M-11.
(xii)
Copy of reply submitted by Rati Bouri, second wife of Sital Bouri dated 23.03.2017 is produced as
Exhibit M-12.
(xiii)
Copy of letter issued by Sr. Manager (Personnel)/Empl (ED) to the Sr. Manager (Personnel)/IC, Kajora
Area dated 19.03.2018 regretting the prayer for employment of Supal Bouri on the ground that the
claim for employment by children of second wife cannot be considered after twenty eight years from
the cause of action, is produced as Exhibit M-13.
In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that Gedari Bouri and Supal Bouri applied for employment of Supal Bouri
on 10.04.1996. He further deposed that there is a clear finding in screening committee‘s report that Supal Bouri is the
son of Sital Bouri and denied that Gedari Bouri had ever applied for her own employment. The witness denied that the
management company deliberately denied employment to Supal Bouri or that Supal Bouri is entitled to get employment
in place of his father.
7.
Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for the dependent son argued that after death of Sital Bouri on
10.08.1990, the dependent son submitted application for employment on 15.05.1995 (Exhibit W-5). He argued that the
name of Supal Bouri appeared in Service Record Excerpt (Exhibit W-4) and management of ECL initiated the process
for employment of the dependent holding Initial Medical Examination (IME) as per letter No. KA/PM/C-6/35/2829/7159
dated 07.12.1996 (Exhibit W-6). Learned advocate submitted that the dependent son was found fit for employment. The
management accepted the indemnity bond from the dependent son, copy of which is produced as Exhibit M-10. The
management after waiting for several years regretted the prayer for employment by issuing a letter dated 19.03.2018
issued by Sr. Manager (Personnel)/Empl (ED) where it is stated that while the process for employment was under
process, a legal notice was served upon the office by one of dependents and it indicates that the dependents of ex-
employee had a family dispute till 2011 and that the ex-employee had two wives namely Gedari Bouri and Rati Bouri
and as per practice, the claim for employment of children of second wife could not be considered. It is argued that twenty
eight years have passed and the prayer for employment has been regretted on the ground of factual misrepresentation by
the dependents of the deceased. It is argued that management has failed to assign any cogent reason in their letter dated
19.03.2018 regretting claim for employment. It is prayed that Supal Bouri is entitled to employment as per provision
of NCWA.
6240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
Mr. P.K. Das, learned advocate in his reply for the management of ECL argued that the deceased employee had
two wives and during the lifetime of Gedari Bouri, the workman married Rati Bouri. After his death, a family dispute
surfaced and the dependent son of the deceased delayed in submitting clarification to the management after five years as
to whether the deceased had two wives. It is further argued that Supal Bouri submitted his application six years after the
death of his father and the dependent son of the deceased workman is more than 53 years of age and the family has been
able to overcome the imminent family crisis after the death of Sital Bouri and thereafter for more than twenty nine years.
It is urged that the claim for employment has turned stale and the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed, without any
relief to the son of the deceased employee.
9.
I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the workman and management in the light of the facts
and circumstances of the case and the reliefs claimed in the written statement. I have also considered the evidence
adduced by both parties as well as documents produced. Sital Bouri was a permanent employee of ECL and was posted
at Ghanashyam Colliery at the time of his death on 10.08.1990. From paragraph six (6) of the affidavit-in-chief of Supal
Bouri, I find that Gedari Bouri, the mother of the petitioner applied for her employment but her prayer was declined
through letter dated 29.09.1994. It transpires from further averment in affidavit that Gedari Bouri was suffering from
incurable disease and she submitted an application on 15.09.1995 for providing employment to her son. The copy of
application by Gedari Bouri addressed to the Agent, Ghanashyam Colliery has been produced as Exhibit W-5. It is
evident that the application for employment was made five years after the death of Sital Bouri. Supal Bouri himself
submitted an application before the management on 10.04.1996 (Exhibit M-5). The dependents of the deceased
employee appeared before the screening committee of the company on 07.09.1996 for the purpose of employment of
Supal Bouri.
10.
It is undisputed that a family dispute surfaced amongst the dependents of Sital Bouri which continued till 2011.
It is also admitted that the management while considering prayer for employment issued a letter dated 21.02.2012
(Exhibit M-11) whereby the file for employment was returned with some queries regarding the two wives of Sital Bouri
namely Gedari Bouri and Rati Bouri. The second wife, Rati Bouri replied to the queries only on 23.03.2017 (Exhibit M-
12). Much time was consumed in sorting out the ambiguities. It also appears that there were laches on the part of
dependent son in submitting his application after a long period, following a family dispute. The management of ECL
declined the proposal for employment to the dependent son by issuing letter No. ECL/CMD/C-6B/EMPL/ED-
1507/18/95 dated 19.03.2018 (Exhibit M-13). The Industrial Dispute has been raised after lapse of twenty eight years of
death of the person. This is a clear case where the claim for employment is defeated due to inordinate delay in claiming
employment. In his affidavit-in-chief he has disclosed his age as 53 years. Due to efflux of time, the claim for
employment has failed miserably. It appears to me that no purpose would be served by providing employment to the son
of the deceased employee who is very close to his age of superannunation. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the
action taken by the management by regretting the claim for employment of the dependent son which is a fallout of their
own family dispute.
Hence,
ORDERED
The Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. The son of deceased employee is not entitled to any relief in this
case and I find no illegality in the action of the management. The management of ECL is directed to disburse the legal
dues of Sital Bouri to the legal heirs along with consequential benefits withintwo months from the award. Let an Award
be drawn up on the basis of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 16 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1702.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
] आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22012/17/2019-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6241
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2025
S.O. 1702.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.20/2019 of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8/9/2025.
[No. L-22012/17/2019– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 20 OF 2019
PARTIES: Mahendra Roy
(dependent son of Late Dhodo Roy)
Vs.
Management of Bahula Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Basudev Choudhury, Advocate.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
08.08.2025
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), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.
L-22012/17/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 13.03.2019 has referred the following dispute between the employer, that is the
Management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by
this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Bahula Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Ltd in rejection of claim of
compassionate appointment in respect of Sri Mahendra Roy, S/o Late Dhodo Roy, Ex-UG. Trammer of Bahula
Colliery is justified or not? If not, what relief Sri Mahendra Roy is entitled to? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/17/2019-IR(CM-II) dated 13.03.2019 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 02.04.2019 and an
order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their
written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
General Secretary of Untied Koila Mazdoor Sangh filed written statement on 22.05.2019 on behalf of Mahendra
Roy, son of the deceased employee Dhodo Roy. Bare fact of the case is that Dhodo Roy was a permanent employee of
Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) and was posted at Jambad (N) Unit of Bahula Colliery under
Kenda Area as Trammer bearing UM No. 519570. He died in harness on 28.09.2014. Mahendra Roy, the dependent son
applied for his employment on 06.11.2014 as per the provisions under Clause 9.3.2 of National Coal Wage Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as NCWA). The Apex Medical Board held on 30.08.2017 at Central Hospital, Kalla assessed the
age of Mahendra Roy as thirty-five (35) to forty (40) years. Therefore, his age on the date of submission of his
application on 06.11.2014 for employment was less than thirty-five (35) years and his claim for employment is genuine.
6242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Management contested the Industrial Dispute by filing their written statement on 20.12.2022. According to the
management Dhodo Roy expired on 28.09.2014. Mahendra Roy after the death of his father claimed for employment as
per provision of NCWA. He was advised to appear before the Medical Board on 30.08.2017. As per findings of the Apex
Medical Board the dependent was found over age for his employment. He was not eligible for being considered for
employment and a letter was issued to him regretting the prayer for employment. According to the management of ECL,
NCWA is a bipartite agreement and enforceable by law, as such no Industrial Dispute could arise on matters settled
under NCWA. According to the management the Industrial Dispute is bereft of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
4.
The central point for consideration is whether rejection of claim for compassionate employment of Mahendra
Roy by the management of Bahula Colliery is justified and legal.
5.
Union examined Mahendra Roy as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed his affidavit-in-chief and reiterated the
facts disclosed in the written statement. The dependent son further claimed that according to his Voter Identity and
Aadhaar Card his date of birth is 01.01.1984. He also contended that the assessment of age by the Medical Board is
erroneous and he is entitled to get employment in place of his father who died in harness. Witness produced the
following documents in support of his case:
(i)
Copy of the application of Jhinkulia Devi, wife of the deceased workman dated 13.01.2015 for
employment of her son is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of the application for employment of Mahendra Roy dated 04.11.2014, as Exhibit W-2
(iii)
Copy of the Identity Card of Dhodo Roy issued by the management, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of the Certificate of death of Dhodo Roy dated 28.09.2014 issued from Central Hospital, Kalla,
as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Dhodo Roy, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of the application of Jhinkulia Devi, dated 08.10.2014 addressed to the Agent, Bahula Colliery,
informing him about death of Dhodo Roy as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of the letter dated 14/16.05.2015 issued by the Ch. Manager (P), Kenda Area regarding screening
of the dependents, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii)
Copy of the letter dated 29.08.2017 issued by the Area Personnel Manager, Kenda Area addressed to
the Asst. Manager (P), Bahula Colliery, regarding appearance of Mahendra Roy before the Apex
Medical Board, as Exhibit W-8.
(ix)
Copy of the letter dated 28.01.2015 issued by the Manager (Pers.), Bahula Colliery addressed to
Mahendra Roy for his screening, as Exhibit W-9.
(x)
Copy of the letter dated 17.06.2015 issued by the Chief Manager (P), Kenda Area addressed to the
Area Medical Officer, Kenda Area for Initial Medical Examination of Mahendra Roy, as Exhibit W-
10.
(xi)
Copy of the Report of Apex Medical Board dated 30.08.2017, as Exhibit W-11.
(xii)
Copy of the letter dated 19.06.2018 issued by the Asst. Manager (P), Bahula Colliery, informing
Mahendra Roy that he is not eligible for employment, as Exhibit W-12.
(xiii)
Copy of the Medical Examination Form No. III of Mahendra Roy, as Exhibit W-13.
(xiv)
Copy of the Aadhaar Card of Mahendra Roy, as Exhibit W-14.
6.
In his cross-examination the witness deposed that he did not attend school. It further transpires that the
management declined to provide employment to him on the ground that he was more than 35 years of age on the date of
examination. He could not produce any document in support of his age or date of birth except Aadhaar Card.
7.
Management examined Mr. Rakesh Kumar Basant, Assistant Manager (Personnel), as Management Witness
No. 1. He filed an affidavit-in-chief stating therein that the management of ECL advised Mahendra Roy to appear before
the Chief Medical Officer‘s office for his medical examination on 30.08.2017. On 23/24.03.2018 the Area Personnel
Manager, Kenda Area issued letter No. Pers/KND/41/497 informing that the employment proposal of the dependent of
Dhodo Roy has been examined but could not be considered due to the reason that he was over age as per provision of
NCWA. The same was communicated to Mahendra Roy through letter No. Agent/BC/C-6B/20/18/476 dated 19.06.2018.
In course of evidence management placed the following documents :
(i)
Copy of the letter dated 23/27.04.2015 issued by the Manager (Personnel), Bahula Colliery, forwarding
the employment proposal of Mahendra Roy to the Chief Manager (Personnel), Kenda Area is produced
as Exhibit M-1.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6243
(ii)
Copy of the letter dated 23.02.2016 issued by the Chief Manager (P), Kenda Area forwarding the
employment proposal of Mahendra Roy to the Sr. Manager (Pers) Empl/ED, ECL, Sanctoria, as
Exhibit M-2.
(iii)
Copy of the letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Sr. Manager(P)Empl/ED addressed to the Sr.
Manager (P), Kenda Area, regretting employment proposal of the dependent of Dhodo Roy, as Exhibit
M-3.
(iv)
Copy of the letter dated 23/24.03.2018 issued by the Area Personnel Manager, Kenda Area informing
the Agent of Bahula Colliery that the employment proposal of Mahendra Roy cannot be considered, as
Exhibit M-4.
(v)
Copy of the letter dated 19.06.2018 issued by the Asst. Manager (P), Bahula Colliery, informing
Mahendra Roy that he is not eligible for employment, as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of the Service Book of Dhodo Roy, as Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of the LTC Form of Dhodo Roy, as Exhibit M-7.
It is stated by the management witness that the petitioner is not entitled to employment as he has exceeded the upper age
limit for getting employment as per NCWA.
8.
In his cross-examination the witness deposed that at the time of assessment of age on 30.08.2017 the age of
Mahendra Roy was between 35 and 40 years (Exhibit W-11). He further deposed that the age of Mahendra Roy was
assessed between 31 and 36 years at the time of his examination at Kenda Area on 08.07.2015. The management witness
further deposed that Mahendra Roy is not entitled to get any employment in place of his father.
9.
Mr. Basudev Choudhury, learned advocate for the union argued that as per provision in Clause 9.3.4 of
NCWA the male dependent to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment
and he should not be aged more than 35 years. There is no qualm that Dhodo Roy died in harness on 28.09.2014 and
Mahendra Roy, his dependent son submitted application for employment dated 04.11.2014 (Exhibit W-2). By letter
dated 14/16.05.2015 (Exhibit W-7), Mahendra Roy along with others were asked for appearing before Area Screening
Committee at Kenda Area on 20.05.2015 along with relevant documents. By letter dated 29.08.2017 (Exhibit W-8) he
was asked to appear before the Apex Medical Board at Central Hospital, Kalla on 30.08.2017. It is submitted that the
dependent complied the instruction and appeared for his medical examination on 30.08.2017 where after examination by
the Medical Board and holding X-Ray examination, bearing investigation No. 3759 dated 30.08.2017, it was found that
the age of the candidate was between 35 to 40 years as on the date of examination. Learned advocate argued that if
reliance is placed upon the report of the Apex Medical Board, the age of Mahendra Roy would be assessed as thirty-
seven and half (37 and ½) years on 30.08.2017 and his age would be computed as thirty-four and half (34 and ½) years
on 30.08.2014 and by no stretch of imagination the management of ECL can assume that on the date of submitting his
application for employment on 06.11.2014 the workman had crossed the age of 35 years, the maximum age for granting
employment in respect of a male dependent of the deceased employee under Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA. It is urged that the
management by regretting the prayer for employment has acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner and Mahendra Roy is
entitled to employment.
10.
Mr. Mani Padma Banerjee, learned advocate appeared for the management of ECL simply argued that the
dependent son of Dhodo Roy had crossed the age of 35 years on the date of medical examination as such he is not
entitled to employment.
11.
Having considered the argument advanced by the learned advocates on behalf of the dependent son of the
deceased employee and management of ECL and also considering the materials on record, it appears to me that the bone
of contention is whether the dependent son claiming employment after the death of his father in harness had crossed the
maximum age for employment on the date of his submitting application before the management. In the instant case
Mahendra Roy submitted his application before the Agent, Bahula Colliery on 06.11.2014, disclosing that his father
expired on 28.09.2014 at Central Hospital, Kalla and he claimed employment as a dependent son of the deceased
employee. According to Circular No. CIL/C-5B/JBCCI/9.4.3/163 dated 25.07.2003, the date for reckoning the age of a
dependent was the date of submitting application for employment. From the copy of Service Book of Dhodo Roy
(Exhibit M-6) it appears from Column No. 16 that Mahendra Roy is one of the sons of the workman. From the cross-
examination of the workman witness it appears that he did not attend any school for education and he was unable to
produce any document in support of his age. Be that as it may, admittedly, Mahendra Roy was referred for his medical
examination by the Apex Medical Board on 30.08.2017 and after holding scientific medical examination i.e., by
conducting X-Ray of various parts of the body, the Medical Board assessed the age of Mahendra Roy between 35 and 40
years on 30.08.2017 (Exhibit W-11). It appears from the report of Medical Board that the age of the dependent son on
the date of medical examination was thirty-seven and half (37 and ½) years. Therefore, his age requires to be reckoned as
34 years and 9 months on the date of submitting his application for employment and it can be declared without hesitation
that he is below 35 years on the date he claimed his employment, two months after the death of his father. At this
juncture it is worthwhile to reproduce the provision under Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA-IX, which lays down that :
6244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :SEPTEMBER 20, 2025/BHADRA 29, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“the dependants to be considered for employment should be physically fit and suitable for employment and aged
not more than 35 years provided that the age limit in case of employment of female spouse would be 45 years as
given in Clause
9.5.0. In so far as male spouse is concerned, there would be no age limit regarding provision of employment.”
12.
The law is well settled that the terms and conditions agreed upon between the representatives of the
management of the employer company and the representatives of the workmen laid down in the NCWA are binding
upon the parties. In the case of Sukumoni Hembram Alias Sukumoni Mejhan Vs. The Union of India and Others
[MAT 27 of 2024], the Hon‘ble High Court at Calcutta while referring to the binding nature of the NCWA observed :
“ 21.
NCWA is a negotiated agreement that has been arrived at between the employer and the employees. It is a
settlement under section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and has binding effect on the parties thereto under
section 18 (3) of the Act of 1947. NCWA has made provisions for compassionate appointment for the dependents of the
deceased employee.”
I, therefore, hold that the provision of Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA-IX is binding upon the employer company just like any
other settlement under Section 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the time of his medical examination the
Medical Board did not make any adverse observation regarding his fitness for employment. Under the facts and
circumstances, I find and hold that Mahendra Roy being the dependent son of the deceased employee, Dhodo Roy and
well within the maximum age for employment on the date of submitting his application for employment, he is entitled to
get employment under the employer company / ECL according to the provisions of NCWA. It appears that management
of ECL has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner by delaying in reaching a finality and ultimately holding that the
candidate was over age for employment. The decision of the management communicated to Mahendra Roy by letter
dated 19.06.2018 is without foundation and in violation to the terms of agreement of NCWA. This type of erroneous
approach of the management in utter violation of the terms of agreement not only frustrates the legitimate claim of
the dependents of the deceased employees in securing their right to employment but creates immense suffering due to
non-employment of the family members of the deceased for several years, keeping them waiting. It also results in
depreciating human resources of the country in a wasteful manner. The management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda
Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited is hereby directed to process the prayer for employment of Mahendra Roy within two
(2) months from the date of communication of the Award.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is decided in favour of Mahendra Roy, on contest against the management. The
management of Bahula Colliery under Kenda Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to process the prayer for
employment of Mahendra Roy within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award, failing which the
management of Eastern Coalfields Limited shall pay him compensation equivalent to the monthly salary of entry level
post till employment is processed. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in
duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer,
नई ददल्ली, 16 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 1703.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–
सह
–
]आसनसोल ds iapkV (सन्दभड सं्या
/
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं
-22013/01/2025-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2025
S.O. 1703.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award ( Reference.I.D.No.01/2022 of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
E.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8/9/2025.
[No. L-22013/01/2025– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : जसतम् बर 20, 2025/भाद्र 29, 1947
6245
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
L. C. APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2022
PARTIES: Ramsagar Prasad.
Vs.
Director (Personnel), ECL, Sanctoria.
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Mohan Prasad, Advocate.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
08.07.2025
AWARD
1.
Instant application under section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed by Sri Ramsagar
Prasad, Fan Operator at Central Hospital, Kalla under Eastern Coalfields Limited, praying for payment of dues in respect
of House Rent Allowance from 01.08.2019 to 01.01.2022, amounting to Rs. 2,56,221.46/- (Rupees two lakh fifty-six
thousand two hundred twenty-one and forty-six paisa only).
2.
Mr. Sayantan Mukherjee, learned advocate appeared for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited.
Ramsagar Prasad, petitioner is represented by Mr. Mohan Prasad, learned advocate. Application under section 33(C)(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is fixed up today for hearing on the point of its maintainability.
3.
In the application petitioner has claimed for payment of House Rent Allowance from 01.08.2019 to 01.01.2022,
amounting to Rs. 2,56,221.46/- and an interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum. Learned advocate submitted that no
prior settlement or Award has been passed in favour of the petitioner for payment of House Rent Allowance. Law is
settled that without any prior settlement or Award passed in favour of the workman, he cannot succeed in his claim for
payment of monetary benefits.
4.
In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ganesh Razak and Another [(1995) 1
SCC 235], the Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that :
“12 ……… where the very basis of the claim or the entitlement of the workmen to a certain benefit is disputed, there
being no earlier adjudication or recognition thereof by the employer, the dispute relating to entitlement is not incidental
to the benefit claimed and is therefore, clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act.”
5.
At this stage, an application is filed by the workman stating that he wants to withdraw the case and prayed that
liberty may be granted to him for raising an Industrial Dispute in respect of claim made herein. Copy served upon
learned advocate for the management. It appears to me that the claim made herein is not maintainable under section
33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the workman realised the defect in his application, his prayer for
withdrawing the case is allowed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner workman to raise a proper Industrial Dispute before
the appropriate authority. L. C. Application No. 01 of 2022 is disposed of on being withdrawn.
Hence,
ORDERED
Let an Award be passed in view of the above discussion. Copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the
Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi under section 33(C)(4) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for information
and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA
Date: 2025.09.25 14:55:23 +05'30'