7624 GI/2025

(7051)

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. 46]

नइ ददल् ली, नवम् बर 23—नवम् बर 29, 2025, िजनवार/ ऄग्रहायण 2—ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

No. 46] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 23—NOVEMBER 29, 2025, SATURDAY/ AGRAHAYANA 2––AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

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

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवदेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2011.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय ऄजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के ऄजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के

ऄनुसरण में वजधाजनक अदेि।

एतद् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार, नवंबर 18, 2025 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनववहन करने के जलए जवदेि में भारतीय जमिनों/ृोस्ट्टों में

सहायक कांसुलर ऄजधकाररयों के प ृ में आस मंत्रालय के नीचे ईजल्लजखत ऄजधकाररयों की जनयुजि करता हज:

क्रम सं.

ऄजधकारी का नाम और ृद

जमिन / ृोस्ट्ट जजसमें सहायक कांसुलर

ऄजधकारी के प ृ में जनयुि दकया गया

हज

1

श्री जजतेन्दर कुमार, कजनष्ठ सजचवालय सहायक

भारतीय दूतावास, बहरीन

2

श्री रजव सजनी, सहायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी

भारतीय दूतावास, हेलससकी

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(38)]

अजिक करजिल, ओएसडी (सीृीवी)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-03122025-268175

CG-DL-W-03122025-268175

7052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2011.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned

officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular services

with effect from November 18, 2025:

S. No Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

1

Mr. Jitander Kumar, Junior Secretariat Assistant

Embassy of India, Bahrain

2

Mr. Ravi Saini, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Helsinki

[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025 (38)]

ASHIQUE KARATTIL, OSD (CPV)

कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 4 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2012.—केंद्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए ऄजधसूचना

सं.

जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.108,

ददनांक

18.09.2025,

गृह

(जविेष)

जवभाग

और

िुजिृत्र

ऄजधसूचना

सं. जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.113, ददनांक 27.09.2025, गृह (जविेष) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तेलंगाना राज्य सरकार की

सम्मजत से भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक को ददनांक 31.03.2023 तक हुए 533.64 करोड़ रुृए का सदोष हाजन काररत करने के

जलए मेससव नीता केजमकल्स (आंजडया) प्राआवेट जलजमटेड; श्री भूृेंद्र बी. जत्रवेदी, प्रबंध जनदेिक; श्री ददनेि बी. जत्रवेदी,

ऄध्यक्ष; श्री एस. राजासेखर, कायवकारी जनदेिक, श्रीमती मेघना बी. जत्रवेदी, जनदेिक; श्रीमती भावना जत्रवेदी, जनदेिक,

श्रीमती एस लोजगता, जनदेिक, श्री जहतेि वेद, ऄृर जनदेिक; श्री तसृदर सुरेन्द्रजीत टकर, ऄृर जनदेिक; श्री ईरा संृत

राव, गारंटीकताव; श्री वी. ऄिोक कुमार, गारंटीकताव और ऄन्य ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं ऄज्ञात गजर सरकारी व्यजियों के

जवरुि भारतीय दंड संजहता 1860 की धारा 120- बी सृर त धाराएं 420 409 468 471 और 477-ए तथा

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 की धारा 13(2) सृर त धारा 13(1)(डी) के ऄंतगवत ृंजीकृत दकए जाने वाले

ऄृराध एवं ददनांक 18.04.2025 की जिकायत के अधार ृर ईि मामले के ऄन्वेषण के दौरान सामने अने वाले दकसी

ऄन्य ऄृराध सजहत ऐसे एक या ईससे ऄजधक ऄृराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र

और/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों) का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए

ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज्य में करती

[फा. सं. 228/87/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 4th November, 2025

S.O. 2012.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 18.09.2025, Home (Special)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7053

Department and Errata Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.113 dated 27.09.2025, Home (Special) Department, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the Members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Telangana State for

investigation in respect of the crime to be registered under section 120-B read with sections 420, 409, 468, 471 and

477-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 and any other offence that may come to light during investigation of the said case including any attempt,

abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more such offences and/or any other offence(s)

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts on the basis of complaint dated

18.04.2023 against M/s Neeta Chemicals (India) Pvt. Limited; Shri Bhupendra B. Trivedi, Managing Director; Shri

Dinesh B. Trivedi, Chairman; Shri S. Rajasekhar, Executive Director, Smt. Meghna B. Trivedi, Director; Smt.

Bhavana Trivedi, Director; Smt. S. Logitha, Director; Shri Hitesh Ved, Additional Director; Shri Tapinder Surendrajit

Tucker, Additional Director; Shri Oora Sampath Rao, Guarantor; Shri V. Ashok Kumar, Guarantor and unknown

public servants and unknown private persons for causing wrongful loss of Rs.533.64 crores as on 31.03.2023 to State

Bank of India.

[F. No. 228/87/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 6 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2013.—केंद्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्रीय

ऄजधजनयम सं. 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, अदेि सं.

20/04/2025-3 एचजी-I, ददनांक 22.10.2025, गृह जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी हररयाणा राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से,

थाना, मनसा देवी ृररसर, जजला ृंचकुला में भारतीय न्याय संजहता (बीएनएस), 2023 की धाराएँ 103 (1) और 61 के

तहत प्राथजमकी सं. 131, ददनांक 20.10.2025 द्वारा दजव मामला और ऄन्य कोइ ऄृराध(धों), यदद कोइ हो, ऄथावत ईि

मामलों से जुड़े या ईससे संबि अत्म हत्या का दु्‍प्रेरण या हत्या के जलए दु्‍प्रयास दु्‍प्रेरण और षड्यंत्र तथा साथ ही ईि

मामले के क्रम में काररत दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराध या ऄृराधों का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के

सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त हररयाणा राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/89/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 6th November, 2025

S.O. 2013.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent

of the State Government of Haryana, issued vide Order No. 20/04/2025-3HG-I dated 22.10.2025, Home Department,

hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of

State of Haryana for investigation of case registered at Police Station, Mansa Devi Complex, District Panchkula, vide

FIR No. 131 dated 20.10.2025 under sections 103(1) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and any

other offence (s), if any i.e. attempts, abetments, conspiracies for abetment to suicide or murder in relation to or in

connection with above mentioned offences as well as for commission of any other offence or offences committed in

the course of aforesaid case.

[F. No. 228/89/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2014.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का ऄजधजनयम

सं्‍या 25) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जनम्नजलजखत ऄृराधों को जवजनर्ददष्ट करती हज जजनका

ऄन्वेषण भी ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों द्वारा दकया जाना हज, नामतः –

7054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(क)

“ओजडिा लोक ृरीक्षा (ऄनुजचत साधनों की रोकथाम) ऄजधजनयम, 2024” के तहत दंडनीय ऄृराधों ।

(ख)

ईजल्लजखत ऄृराध(धों) से जुड़े या ईससे संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और/ऄथवा षड्यंत्र, और/ऄथवा ईसी

संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न कोइ ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों)।

[फा. सं. 228/90(1)/2025]

राजीव कुमार खरे, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2025

S.O. 2014.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to

be investigated by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :-

(a)

Offences punishable under the ―The Odisha Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024‖.

(b)

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

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

same facts.

[F. No. 228/90(1)/2025]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 11 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2015.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का

केन्द्रीय ऄजधजनयम सं. 25) की धारा5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,

ऄजधसूचना सं. 37152, ददनांक 31.10.2025, सामान्य प्रिासन और लोक जिकायत जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी

ओजडिा राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से, संयुि ृुजलस सेवा ृरीक्षा (सीृीएसइ) 2024 ृरीक्षा जो 5 और 6 ऄिूबर

2025 को अयोजजत की जानी थी, में ऄजनयजमतताओं के संबंध में सीअइडीसीबी थाना, कटक में भारतीय न्याय संजहता

(बीएनएस), 2023 की धाराएँ 319(2)/ 318(4)/ 338/336 (3)/340(2)/111/61(2)/3(5) सृर त ओजडिा लोक

ृरीक्षा (ऄनुजचत साधनों की रोकथाम) ऄजधजनयम-2024 की धारा 11(1)/12(1) के तहत ृंजीकृत प्राथजमकी

सं.सीअइडी सीबी ृीएस मामला सं. 7/2025, ददनांक 1ऄिूबर, 2025 में ऄन्वेषण/ ृयवेक्षण तथा ऄन्य ऄृेजक्षत

कारवाइ करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त ओजडिा

राज्य में करती हज। आसके साथ-साथ ईि मामलों से जुड़े या ईस से संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरण और षड्यंत्र तथा समान

संव्यवहार में या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न काररत दकसी ऄन्य ऄृराधों का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए भी सम्मजत प्रदान की जाती

हज।

[फा. सं. 228/90(2)/2025]

राजीव कुमार खरे, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th November, 2025

S.O. 2015.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

Odisha, issued vide NotificationNo.37152, dated 31.10.2025, General Administration and Public Grievance

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

over the entire State of Odisha for investigation/supervision and other required action in the FIR No.CID CB PS vide

case No. 07/2025 / dated 1st October 2025 registered at CID CB Police Station, Cuttack under sections

319(2)/318(4)/338 /336(3)340(2) /111/61(2) /3(5) BNS-2023, read with Sec 11(1)/12(1) of The Odisha Public

Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act-2024 relating to irregularities in the Combined Police Service

Examination (CPSE) 2024 examination which was scheduled to be held on 5^th& 6^th October, 2025. The consent is

also accorded for investigation of attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the

offences in the said case and any other offences committed in the course of same transaction arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/90(2)/2025]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7055

नइ ददल्ली, 12 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2016.— केंद्रीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए ऄजधसूचना

सं. जी.ओ.(एमस.) सं. 59/2025/गृह, ददनांक 23.03.2025, गृह (एम), जवभाग जतरुवनंतृुरम (एस.अर.ओ.सं.

315/2025) और िुजिृत्र ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.(एमएस.) सं. 175/2025/गृह , ददनांक 19.09.2025, गृह (एम)

जवभाग, जतरुवनंतृुरम (एस.अर.ओ. सं. 1089/2025) के माध्यम से जारी केरल राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से श्री महफूस

एम.डी और ऄन्य ऄज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं ऄन्य, यदद कोइ हो, के जवरुि भारतीय दंड संजहता 1860 (1860 का केन्द्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 45) की धारा 120 बी सृर त धाराएं 420 468 471 और 406 तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम,

1988 (1988 का केन्द्रीय ऄजधजनयम 49) (2018 का यथा संिोजधत ऄजधजनयम 16) की धारा 13 की ईृ धारा (2)

सृर त ईृ धारा (1) का खंड (ए) के ऄंतगवत दंडनीय ऄृराधों एवं ईि ऄजधजनयमों के ऄंतगवत काररत दंडनीय ऄृराधों

और सम्ृूणव केरल राज्य में आस मामले के संबंध में ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न संव्यवहार के क्रम में काररत दकन्हीं ऄन्य ऄृराधों

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

राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/88/2025-एवीडी-II]

राजीव कुमार खरे, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2025

S.O. 2016.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

the State Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(Ms.) No. 59/2025/HOME, dated 23.03.2025,

Home (M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O.No. 315/2025) and Erratum Notification No. G.O.(Ms.) No.

175/2025/HOME, dated 19.09.2025, Home (M) Department, Thiruvananthapuram (S.R.O.No. 1089/2025), hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole state of

Kerala for the investigation of offences punishable under sections 120 B read with sections 420,468,471 and 406 of

the Indian Penal Code,1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) and sub section (2) read with clause (a) of sub section (1) of

section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) (as amended Act 16 of 2018) against

Shri Mahfoose M.D, and unknown public servants and others, if any, for commission of offences punishable under

the said Acts and any other offences committed in the course of transaction arising out of the same fact, in regard to

this case, within the whole State of Kerala.

[F. No. 228/88/2025-AVD-II]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 12 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2017.—केंद्रीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्द्रीय

ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए ऄजधसूचना ज्ञाृन

सं. जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.93, ददनांक 14.08.2025, गृह (जविेष) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तेलंगाना राज्य सरकार की

सम्मजत से (i) श्री गोल्ला दुगाव प्रसाद, ृररयोजना जनदेिक, ृीअइयू, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमागव प्राजधकरण, वारंगल; (ii)

श्री वेणु यादव, माजलक, मेससव ककग्स होटल, गुडूर टोल प्लाजा, हजदराबाद - वारंगल हाइवे, बीबी नगर, तेलंगाना और

ऄज्ञात ऄन्य लोक सेवकों तथा ऄज्ञात गजर सरकारी व्यजियों के जवरुि भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण (ृीसी) ऄजधजनयम, 1988

(1988 का केन्द्रीय ऄजधजनयम सं. 49) (2018 के ऄजधजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजधत), की धारा 7 एवं 7 ए, भारतीय

न्याय संजहता (बीएनएस), 2023 की धारा 61(2) के तहत दंडनीय ऄृराधों के संबंध में ददनांक 19.08.2025 को ृंजीकृत

अरसी 11(A)/2025 में, ऄन्य संचयी ऄृराधों एवं ईि मामले के ऄन्वेषण के दौरान प्रकाि में अने वाले ऄन्य

7056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ऄृराध(धों) तथा ऐसे एक या ईससे ऄजधक ऄृराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबि दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र

एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में काररत या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्ृन्न दकन्हीं ऄन्य ऄृराध तथा ददनांक 08.08.2025 की

जिकायत के अधार ृर दकन्ही ऄन्य ऄृराध(धों) के ृंजीकरण एवं ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के

सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोिर प्रभाव से ददनांक 19.08.2025 से) समस्ट्त तेलांगाना राज्य में

करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/72/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2025

S.O. 2017.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

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

the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.93,Dated 14.08.2025, Home(Special)

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

whole of the State of Telangana (ex post fact w.e.f. 19.08.2025) for registration and investigation in RC 11(A)/2025

registered on 19.08.2025 against (i) Shri Golla Durga Prasad, Project Director, PIU, National Highways Authority of

India, Warangal; (ii) Shri Venu Yadav, Owner, M/s Kings Hotel, Gudur Toll Plaza, Hyderabad- Warangal Highway,

Bibi Nagar, Telangana and unknown other public servants and unknown private persons for the offences punishable

under section 7 & 7 A of PC Act, 1988 (Central Act No. 49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), 61(2) of BNS,

2023, other cumulative offences and any other offence(s) that may come to light during the investigation of the said

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

and/or any offence committed in the course of such transaction or arising out of the same facts and any other

offence(s) on the basis of complaint dated 08.08.2025.

[F. No. 228/72/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2018.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

ईृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एस.वी.राजू , भारत के एजडिनल सॉजलजसटर जनरल, को

माननीय ददल्ली ईच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष ररट याजचका (जसजवल) 1384/2024 में, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन (केंद्रीय

ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो) की ओर से मामले का और जवजध द्वारा स्ट्थाजृत ऄृील या ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालयों में, ईस मामले से

ईद्भूत, ऄृील, ृुनरीक्षण और ऄन्य मामलों का संचालन करने हेतु, मामले का जनृटान होने तक या ऄगले अदेि तक,

आनमें से जो भी ृूववतर हो, जविेष लोक ऄजभयोजक के प ृ में जनयुि करती हज ।

[फा. सं. 225/21/2025-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2025

S.O. 2018.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. V Raju, Additional Solicitor-

General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the case in W.P.(C) 1384/2024 on behalf of Delhi

Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) before the High Court of Delhi and any appeal,

revision or other matters arising therefrom, in any appellate or revisional Court established by law for the time being

in force, till such case is disposed of or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/21/2025-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7057

नइ ददल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2019.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

ईृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत के राजृत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, ईृखंड (ii) में

सं्‍यांक का.अ. 731 तारीख 20 ददसंबर 2023 द्वारा प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन

मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज ऄथावत्:-

ईि ऄजधसूचना की सारणी में -

(क) श्री जबश्वजीत बसु से संबंजधत क्रम सं्‍यांक 6 और ईससे संबंजधत प्रजवजष्टयों का लोृ दकया जाएगा और

तारीख 10 माचव 2025 से लोृ दकया गया समझा जाएगा ।

(ख) श्री प्रसून चक्रवती से संबंजधत क्रम सं्‍यांक 8 और ईससे संबंजधत प्रजवजष्टयों का लोृ दकया जाएगा और

तारीख 1 मइ 2025 से लोृ दकया गया समझा जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. 225/02/2023-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2025

S.O. 2019.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, published in the

Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 731, dated the 20th December, 2023, namely:–

In the said notification, in the Table, –

(a) serial number 6 relating to Shri Biswajit Basu and the entries relating thereto, shall be omitted and shall be

deemed to be omitted with effect from 10th March, 2025;

(b) serial number 8 relating to Shri Prosun Chakraborty and the entries relating thereto, shall be omitted and

shall be deemed to be omitted with effect from 1st May, 2025.

[F. No. 225/02/2023-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 19 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2020.—केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

ईृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत के राजृत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, ईृखंड (ii) में

सं्‍यांक का.अ. 728 तारीख 14 ददसंबर 2023 द्वारा प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन

मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज ऄथावत्:-

ईि ऄजधसूचना में “(i) श्री दीृक सब्बरवाल.” कोष्ठक सं्‍या और िब्दों का 10 ऄप्रजल 2025 से लोृ दकया

जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. 225/05/2023-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2025

S.O. 2020.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, published in

the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 728, dated the 14^th December, 2023,

namely: -

In the said notification, the brackets, figure, letters and words ―(i) Sh. Deepak Sabherwal,‖ shall be omitted

and shall be deemed to be omitted with effect from 10^th April, 2025.

[F. No. 225/05/2023-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

7058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2021.—केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (ऄजवन और जवकास) ऄजधजनयम 1957 (1957 का 20) की

धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना, जो भारत के राजृत्र,

ऄसाधारण, भाग II खंड 3, ईृ-खंड (ii), तारीख 16 जसतंबर, 2025 में का.अ. 4181 (ऄ), तारीख 16 जसतंबर, 2025 के

तहत प्रकाजित हुइ थी, में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, ऄथावत्: -

ईि ऄजधसूचना में, ऄनुसूची के स्ट्थान ृर, जनम्नजलजखत ऄनुसूची रखी जाएगी, ऄथावत्:

ऄनुसूची

क्रम स.

सक्षम प्राजधकारी के प ृ में जनयुि व्यजि का ृदनाम

अजधकाररक ृता

सक्षम प्राजधकाररयों

द्वारा जन्‍ृाददत

दकए जाने वाले

कायों के संबंध में

धाराओं के ईृबंध

1

2

3

4

1.

1. मु्‍य ऄजभयंता – फ्यूल

2. ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

3. कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

4. सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

हररयाणा ृॉवर जनरेिन

कारृोरेिन जलजमटेड, सी-7,

उजाव भवन, सेक्टर-6, ृंचकूला

धारा 4 की ईृ-

धारा (3)

2.

1. मु्‍य ऄजभयंता – फ्यूल

2. ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

3. कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

4. सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

हररयाणा ृॉवर जनरेिन

कारृोरेिन जलजमटेड, सी-7,

उजाव भवन, सेक्टर-6, ृंचकूला

धारा 6

3.

कोयला जनयंत्रक

कोयला जनयंत्रक का कायावलय,

कौंजसल हाईस स्ट्रीट,

कोलकाता-700001

धारा 8 की ईृ-

धारा (2)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7059

4.

1. मु्‍य ऄजभयंता – फ्यूल

2. ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

3. कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

4. सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

हररयाणा ृॉवर जनरेिन

कारृोरेिन जलजमटेड, सी-7,

उजाव भवन, सेक्टर-6, ृंचकूला

धारा 12

धारा 13 की ईृ-

धारा (6)

धारा 14 की ईृ-

धारा (1)

धारा 14 की ईृ-

धारा (4)

धारा 16

धारा 17

धारा 19

धारा 20 की ईृ-

धारा (3)

धारा 21

5.

1. मु्‍य ऄजभयंता – फ्यूल

2. ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

ऄधीक्षण ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

3. कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

4. सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-फ्यूल

या

सहायक कायवकारी ऄजभयंता-माआसनग

हररयाणा ृॉवर जनरेिन

कारृोरेिन जलजमटेड, सी-7,

उजाव भवन, सेक्टर-6, ृंचकूला

धारा 22

[फा. सं. 43015/12/2025–एलएअइअर]

दिवन कुमार सोलंकी, जनदेिक

रटप्ृण : मूल ऄजधसूचना भारत के राजृत्र, ऄसाधारण, भाग II, खंड 3, ईृखंड (ii), ददनांक 16 जसतंबर, 2025 में

सं्‍या का.अ. 4181 (ऄ), तारीख 16 जसतंबर, 2025 द्वारा प्रकाजित की गइ थी।

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2021.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act 1957 (20 of 1957), the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification

of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3,

Sub-section (ii), dated the 16^th September, 2025 vide number S.O.4181 (E), dated the 16^th September, 2025, namely: –

7060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In the said notification, for the Schedule, the following Schedule shall be substituted, namely: –

SCHEDULE

Serial

number

Designation of the person appointed as

competent authority

Official address

Provision

of

sections in respect

of the functions to

be performed by

the

competent

authorities

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1.

1. Chief Engineer-Fuel

2. Superintending Engineer-Fuel or

Superintending Engineer-Mining

3. Executive Engineer-Fuel or Executive

Engineer-Mining

4. Assistant Executive Engineer-Fuel or

Assistant Executive Engineer-Mining

Haryana

Power

Generation

Corporation Limited, C-7, Urja

Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula

Sub-section (3) of

section 4

2.

1. Chief Engineer-Fuel

2. Superintending Engineer-Fuel or

Superintending Engineer-Mining

3. Executive Engineer-Fuel or Executive

Engineer-Mining

4. Assistant Executive Engineer-Fuel or

Assistant Executive Engineer-Mining

Haryana

Power

Generation

Corporation Limited, C-7, Urja

Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula

Section 6

3.

Coal Controller

Office of the Coal Controller,1,

Council House Street, Kolkata-

700001

Sub-section (2) of

section 8

4.

1. Chief Engineer-Fuel

2. Superintending Engineer-Fuel or

Superintending Engineer-Mining

3. Executive Engineer-Fuel or Executive

Engineer-Mining

4. Assistant Executive Engineer-Fuel or

Assistant Executive Engineer-Mining

Haryana

Power

Generation

Corporation Limited, C-7, Urja

Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula

Section 12

Sub-section (6) of

section 13

Sub-section (1) of

section 14

Sub-section (4) of

section 14

Section 16

Section 17

Section 19

Sub-section (3) of

section 20

Section 21

5.

1. Chief Engineer-Fuel

2. Superintending Engineer-Fuel or

Superintending Engineer-Mining

3. Executive Engineer-Fuel or Executive

Engineer-Mining

4. Assistant Executive Engineer-Fuel or

Assistant Executive Engineer-Mining

Haryana

Power

Generation

Corporation Limited, C-7, Urja

Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula

Section 22‖.

[F. No. 43015/12/2025-LAIR]

DARSHAN KUMAR SOLANI, Director

Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),

dated the 16^th September, 2025 vide number S.O. 4181 (E), dated the 16^th September, 2025.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7061

वाजणज्य एवं ईद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाजणज्य जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2022.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणविा जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) ऄजधजनयम,1963 (1963 का 22)

की धारा 7 की ईृधारा (1) के साथ ृर त जनयावत (गुणविा जनयंत्रण एवं जनरीक्षण) जनयम,1964 के जनयम 12, के

ईृजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मेससव जमनरल्स लजब सर्मवसेज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, चौथी मंजजल, कमाव

ृेस एवेन्यू, एफ. एल. गोम्स रोड, वास्ट्को-द-गामा, गोवा – 403802 (जजसे एतद्ृश्चात ईि ऄजभकरण कहा जाएगा) को

आस ऄजधसूचना के िासकीय राजृत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वषव की ऄवजध के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय, भारत

सरकार की िासकीय राजृत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की ऄजधसूचना के साथ ऄनुसूची में जनर्ददष्ट ददनांक 20 ददसम्बर,

1965 की ऄजधसूचना सं॰ का.अ. 3975 के तहत प्रकाजित ऄजधसूचना में ईृाबि ऄनुसूजचयों में जवजनर्ददष्ट खजनज और

ऄयस्ट्क समूह-।, ऄथावत लौह ऄयस्ट्क और बाक्साआट के जनयावत से ृूवव जनम्नजलजखत ितों के ऄधीन मोरमुगाओ ृिन और

ृंजजम ृिन में ईक्त खजनज और ऄयस्क का जनरीक्षण और मेससव जमनरल्स लजब सर्मवसेज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड प्रयोगिाला

मेससव जमनरल्स लजब सर्मवसेज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, चौथी मंजजल, कमाव ृेस एवेन्यू, एफ.एल. गोम्स रोड, वास्ट्को द गामा,

गोवा-403802 में ईि खजनजों और ऄयस्ट्कों का ृरीक्षण करने के जलए एक ऄजभकरण के रुृ में मान्यता

देती हज, ऄथावत्:

(i)

यह ऄजभकरण, खजनज और ऄयस्ट्क समूह-। का जनयावत (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के ऄधीन जनरीक्षण

की ृिजत की जाँच करने के जलये जनयावत जनरीक्षण ृररषद् द्वारा नाजमत ऄजधकाररयों को ृयावप्त सहयोग और सहायता

प्रदान करेगी; और

(ii)

यह ऄजभकरण, आस ऄजधसूचना में यथा जवजनर्ददष्ट ऄृने कायों का जन्‍ृादन करने के जलए, जनदेिक (जनरीक्षण

और गुणविा जनयंत्रण) जनयावत जनरीक्षण ृररषद द्वारा समय-समय ृर जलजखत प ृ में ददए गए जनदेिों से अबि होंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/11/2025- जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जसिाथव महाजन, संयुक् त सजचव

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department Of Commerce)

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2025

S.O. 2022.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognizes M/s Minerals Lab Services Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor,

Karma Paes Avenue, F. L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa - 403802, (hereinafter referred to as said agency), as

an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official

Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group-I, namely Iron Ore and Bauxite as specified in the Schedule

annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the Official Gazette

vide number S.O. 3975 dated 20^th December, 1965, and testing of said Minerals and Ores at M/s Minerals Lab

Services Pvt. Ltd. Laboratory M/s. Minerals Lab services Private Limited , 4th floor, Karma Paes Avenue,

F.L. Gomes Road, Vasco da Gama, Goa-403802, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Mormugao Port and

Panjim Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

- Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing from time

to time.

[F. No. K-16014/11/2025- Export Inspection]

SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.

7062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नइ ददल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2023.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणविा जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) ऄजधजनयम,1963 (1963 का 22)

की धारा 7 की ईृधारा (1) के साथ ृर त जनयावत (गुणविा जनयंत्रण एवं जनरीक्षण) जनयम,1964 के जनयम 12, के

ईृजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मजससव जमत्रा एस. के. प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, होसल्डग नंबर 22/107,

वाडव नंबर - 9, ृी.ओ. खंजनचक, हजल्दया, जजला- ृूवव मेददनीृुर, जृन- 721602, ृजश्चम बंगाल (जजसे एतद्ृश्चात ईि

ऄजभकरण कहा जाएगा) को आस ऄजधसूचना के िासकीय राजृत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वषव की ऄवजध के जलए,

वाजणज्य मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की िासकीय राजृत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की ऄजधसूचना के साथ ऄनुसूची में

जनर्ददष्ट ददनांक 20 ददसम्बर, 1965 की ऄजधसूचना सं॰ का.अ. 3975 तथा ददनांक 20 ददसम्बर, 1965 की ऄजधसूचना

सं॰ का.अ. 3978 के तहत प्रकाजित ऄजधसूचना में ईृाबि ऄनुसूजचयों में जवजनर्ददष्ट खजनज और ऄयस्ट्क समूह-।, ऄथावत

लौह ऄयस्ट्क, फेरोमैंगनीज सजहत फेरोमैंगनीज स्ट्लजग और समूह-।।, ऄथावत क्रोम ऄयस्ट्क सजहत क्रोम कॉन्संरेट के जनयावत से

ृूवव जनम्नजलजखत ितों के ऄधीन हजल्दया ृिन, कोलकाता ृिन और सागर एंकरेज ृिन में ईि खजनज और ऄयस्ट्क का

जनरीक्षण और ईि खजनजों और ऄयस्ट्कों का ृरीक्षण मेससव जमत्रा एस.के. प्राआवेट जलजमटेड प्रयोगिाला, होसल्डग

सं्‍या इ 5-138/157, वाडव सं्‍या 23, गंगारामृुर रोड, फेज-2 अर.एच.एस., बेहाला, बनजीृारा, डाकघर-रायृुर,

थाना महेितला, दजक्षण 24 ृरगना, ृजश्चम बंगाल में करने के जलए एक ऄजभकरण के रुृ में मान्यता देती हज, ऄथावत् :

(i)

यह ऄजभकरण, खजनज और ऄयस्ट्कों के जनयावत - समूह I (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 और खजनज और ऄयस्ट्कों के

जनयावत - समूह II (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के तहत जनर्ददष्ट जनरीक्षण करने के जलए जनयावत जनरीक्षण ृररषद

द्वारा नाजमत ऄजधकाररयों को ृयावप्त सहयोग और सहायता प्रदान करेगी; और

(ii)

यह ऄजभकरण, आस ऄजधसूचना में यथा जवजनर्ददष्ट ऄृने कायों का जन्‍ृादन करने के जलए, जनदेिक (जनरीक्षण

और गुणविा जनयंत्रण) जनयावत जनरीक्षण ृररषद द्वारा समय-समय ृर जलजखत प ृ में ददए गए जनदेिों से अबि होंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/9/2025- जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जसिाथव महाजन, संयुक् त सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2025

S.O. 2023.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises M/s Mitra S.K. Private Limited, Holding No.

22/107, Ward No.- 9, P.O. Khanjanchak, Haldia, Dist.- Purba Medinipur, Pin- 721602, West Bengal, (hereinafter

referred to as said agency), as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this

notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group-I, namely Iron Ore,

Ferromanganese including Ferromanganese slag and Group-II, namely, Chrome Ore including Chrome Concentrate

as specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce,

published in the Official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975 dated 20^th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated 20^th

December, 1965 respectively and testing of said minerals and ores at M/s Mitra S.K. Private Limited Laboratory,

Holding No. E 5-138/157, Ward no.23, Gangarampur Road. Phase-2 R.H.S. to Behala, Banerjeepara, P.O.-Raipur,

P.S. Mahesatala, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Haldia Port,

Kolkata Port and Sagar Anchorage Port subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i)

the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores

- Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

(ii)

the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing from time

to time.

[F. No. K-16014/9/2025- Export Inspection]

SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7063

नइ ददल्ली, 17 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2024.—केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनयावत (गुणविा जनयंत्रण एंव जनरीक्षण) ऄजधजनयम,1963 (1963 का 22)

की धारा 7 की ईृधारा (1) के साथ ृर त जनयावत (गुणविा जनयंत्रण एवं जनरीक्षण) जनयम,1964 के जनयम 12, के

ईृजनयम (2) द्वारा प्रदि िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मेससव टीसीअरसी आंस्ट्ृेक्िन्स प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, द्वार

नंबर 24-1-4, ृहला और दूसरा माला, रेरोदफट हाईस, थॉम्ृसन स्ट्रीट, गोदारी वाडव गांव, महारानीृेटा मंडल,

जविाखाृट्टनम जजला, जृन कोड – 530001 (जजसे एतद्ृश्चात ईि ऄजभकरण कहा जाएगा) को आस ऄजधसूचना के

िासकीय राजृत्र में प्रकािन की तारीख से तीन वषव की ऄवजध के जलए, वाजणज्य मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की िासकीय

राजृत्र में प्रकाजित भारत सरकार की ऄजधसूचना के साथ ऄनुसूची में जनर्ददष्ट ददनांक 20 ददसम्बर, 1965 की ऄजधसूचना

सं॰ का.अ. 3975 तथा ददनांक 20 ददसम्बर, 1965 की ऄजधसूचना सं॰ का.अ. 3978 के तहत प्रकाजित ऄजधसूचना में

ईृाबि ऄनुसूजचयों में जवजनर्ददष्ट खजनज और ऄयस्ट्क समूह-।, ऄथावत लौह ऄयस्ट्क, मैंगनीज ऄयस्ट्क तथा बॉक्साआट और

समूह-।।, ऄथावत बजराआट्स के जनयावत से ृूवव जनम्नजलजखत ितों के ऄधीन जविाखाृट्टनम ृिन, गंगावरम ृिन और

कृ्‍णाृट्टनम ृिन में ईि खजनज और ऄयस्ट्क का जनरीक्षण मेससव टीसीअरसी आंस्ट्ृेक्िन प्राआवेट जलजमटेड प्रयोगिाला,

द्वार सं्‍या 24-1-4, प्रथम और जद्वतीय तल, रेरोदफट हाईस, थॉम्ृसन स्ट्रीट, गोदारी वाडव ग्राम महारानीृेटा मंडल,

जविाखाृिनम जजला जृनकोड-530001 में ईि खजनज और ऄयस्ट्कों का ृरीक्षण करने के जलए एक ऄजभकरण के रुृ में

मान्यता देती हज, ऄथावत् :

i.

यह ऄजभकरण, खजनज और ऄयस्ट्कों के जनयावत - समूह I (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 और खजनज और ऄयस्ट्कों के

जनयावत - समूह II (जनरीक्षण) जनयम, 1965 के जनयम 4 के तहत जनर्ददष्ट जनरीक्षण करने के जलए जनयावत जनरीक्षण ृररषद

द्वारा नाजमत ऄजधकाररयों को ृयावप्त सहयोग और सहायता प्रदान करेगी; और

ii.

यह ऄजभकरण, आस ऄजधसूचना में यथा जवजनर्ददष्ट ऄृने कायों का जन्‍ृादन करने के जलए, जनदेिक (जनरीक्षण

और गुणविा जनयंत्रण) जनयावत जनरीक्षण ृररषद द्वारा समय-समय ृर जलजखत प ृ में ददए गए जनदेिों से अबि होंगी ।

[फा. सं. के-16014/10/2025- जनयावत जनरीक्षण]

जसिाथव महाजन, संयुक् त सजचव

New Delhi, the 17th November, 2025

S.O. 2024.—In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and

Inspection) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognises TCRC Inspections Private Limited, Door

No. 24-1-4, 1st and 2nd Floor, Retrofit House, Thompsons Street, Godari Ward Village, Maharanipeta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District, Pincode - 530001, (hereinafter referred to as said agency), as an agency for a period of three

years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for the inspection of Minerals

and Ores Group-I, namely Iron Ore, Manganese Ore and Bauxite and Group-II, namely, Barytes as specified in the

Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce, published in the

Official Gazette vide number S.O. 3975 dated 20^th December, 1965 and S.O. 3978 dated 20^th December, 1965

respectively and testing of said mineral and ores at M/s TCRC Inspections Private Limited Laboratory, Door

No. 24-1-4, 1 and 2nd Floor, Retrofit House, Thompsons Street, Godari Ward Village Maharanipeta Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District Pincode-530001, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatnam Port,

Gangavaram Port and Krishnapatnam Port, subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the said agency shall extend adequate cooperation and assistance to the officers nominated by the Export

Inspection Council in this behalf to carry out the inspection specified under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals

and Ores - Group I (Inspection) Rules, 1965 and the Export of Minerals and Ores - Group II (Inspection) Rules,

1965; and

(ii) the said agency, in performance of their function as specified in this notification shall be bound by such

directions, as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council, may give in writing

from time to time.

[F. No. K-16014/10/2025- Export Inspection]

SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, Jt. Secy.

7064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2025.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

नमवदा झाबुअ ग्रामीण बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a85/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/48/2015-अइअर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 85/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Narmada Jhabua

Gramin Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/48/2015- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

1. NO. CGIT/LC/ R/85/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

The General Secretary,

Rashtriyakruth Bank Karmachari Sangthan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (M.P.)

Workman

Vs

The Directorate,

Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank,

Head Office, 201, Silver Arcade, 56 Dukan,

New Palasia, Indore (M.P.)

Management

WITH

2. NO. CGIT/LC/ RC/05/2015

The General Secretary,

Rashtriyakruth Bank Karmachari Sangthan,

F-1, Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engineering College,

Ujjain (M.P.)

Workman

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7065

Vs

The Directorate,

Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank,

Head Office, 201, Silver Arcade, 56 Dukan,

New Palasia, Indore (M.P.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 6^th day of October, 2025)

As per letter dated 07/09/2015 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-12011/48/2015-(IR(B-I)) dt. 07/09/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:-

―Whether the action of the management of Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank in terminating the service of

workman Shri Shankar Singh Bamaniya w.e.f. 07.10.2014 is justified? If not, what relief the workman

entitled to?‖

After registering the case on the basis of reference, notices were issued to the parties. They appeared and

filed their respective statement of claim in defense.

Facts connected in brief are that the departmental enquiry has been conducted against rules and procedure he

was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case. No principle of natural justice is followed in the enquiry. The

charges were wrongly held proved and punishment is disproportionate to the charges proved.

According to management, the workman was issued the charge sheet dated 22/03/2013 with an allegation

that while being posted at the Manawar Branch and Ganpur Branch within the period 15/06/2009 to 17/06/2011 in

Ganpur Branch and 18/06/2011 to 27/12/2011, he misappropriated Rs 3.84 lakhs from the accounts of various account

holders. After finding his reply to the charge sheet unsatisfactory the department decided to conduct departmental

enquiry the enquiry was conducted as per rules and principle of natural justice, given full opportunity to the workman

to defend his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30/07/2024 holding all the charges proved. Agreeing

with the findings in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the workman with the copy of

enquiry report and after considering the reply of the workman, punishment of removal of the workman from the

service of the management bank was passed by the disciplinary authority on 19/09/2014. Also recovery of the amount

of Rs. 3.84 Lakh, suffered by the bank was directed to be realized from gratuity. Appeal against this order was also

dismissed by the appellate authority. The charges are proved and punishment is also not disproportionate to the

charges. RC/05/2015 has been registered on the basis of petition of the workman, filed by him under section 2-A

(2&3) of the Act against his termination with same allegations.

These two cases have been consolidated and RC/05/2015 has been merged in the reference case R/85/2015,

because the parties, dispute and the pleadings were the same.

Following preliminary issue was framed on the basis of pleadings-

Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is legal and proper?

On the basis of evidence on record, this preliminary issue was decided vide order dated 29.09.2024 holding

the departmental enquiry legal and proper, this order is part of this judgment and award.

Following Additional Issues were framed, thereafter:-

(A)

Whether the charges are proved on the basis of enquiry?

(B)

Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charges proved?

(C)

Whether the workmen are entitled for permanent status or not?

The parties did not file any evidence on these issues.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. Aviral Vinayak Jarolia,

Learned Counsel for the management side. I have gone through the record as well.

Additional Issue No.1,

Charges against the workman are total nine, served on him vide show cause notices dated 28.12.2011,

10.07.2012 and 20.01.2012, charges list dated 28.12.2011 enumerates the following charges. Firstly, while being

posted as Cashier in the Manawar Branch of the Bank within the period 17.06.2011 to 27.12.2011, he received

Rs. 25,000/- from the Account Holder, Badrilal to be deposited in the account of account holder on 28.10.2011, he

7066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

made entry of this receipt in the passbook of account holder but did not deposit it with the bank and did not make any

entry in the bank register. Secondly, on 06.09.2011, he received Rs. 23,000/- from Account Holder, Rakesh to be

deposited in the account of account holder. He made an entry of this deposit in the passbook of the account holder but

did not deposit it with the bank nor did he make any entry in the bank records in this respect. Thirdly, on 16.09.2011,

he received Rs. 25,000/- from Account Holder, Shrikrishna to be deposited in his account. He made an entry of this

deposit in the passbook of the account holder but did not deposit it with the bank and did not make entry in this

respect. Vide show cause notice dated 10.07.2012 three charges were leveled against him related to the period

between 15.06.2009 to 17.06.2011 which were firstly, he withdrew Rs. 1 Lac/- from the account of Account Holder,

Radheshyam on 03.06.2010 by preparing a withdrawal form and forged signature of the account holder on the

withdrawal form. Secondly, he received Rs. 6,011/- from the Account Holder, Radheshyam to be deposited in his

account and made entry in this respect in the passbook of the account holder but did not deposit it with the bank and

also did not make entry of this deposit in the bank register. Thirdly, on 07.05.2011, he received Rs. 1 Lac/- from

Account Holder, Kailash to be deposited in his account, this time also he made entry of this deposit in the passbook of

the account holder but did not deposit it with the bank nor did he made any entry of this deposit in the bank records.

Vide show cause notice dated 20.01.2012, he misappropriated amount of Rs. 45,000/- on 10.10.2011, Rs. 40,000/- on

05.09.2011 and Rs. 20,000/- on 12.10.2011 from Account Holders, Sitaram, Harishing and Sanjay to be deposited in

their accounts, he made entry of these deposits in their passbooks but kept the amount with him and did not make

entry of these deposits in the bank records.

Learned Counsel for the workman has stated that two criminal trials proceeded on the basis of very same

charges which resulted into acquittal of the workman and this acquittal was affirmed by Hon‘ble Session Court in

appeal. Judgments on record.

He further submits that the same set of witnesses were examined during the criminal trial also, hence, the

report of the enquiry officer, holding the charges proved cannot be held correct in law. Learned Counsel has further

referred to in the present case only one charge sheet dated 22.03.2013 was issued to the workman for two charges and

no additional charge sheet was issued to him, whereas the enquiry report dated 30.07.2014 submitted by the enquiry

officer had finding with respect to seven charges the original two charges were not proved, during the enquiry, hence,

on this ground also the finding of the enquiry officer is not correct.

Learned Counsel has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Saroj

Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, wherein it has been held that the enquiry officer acts as a Quasi-Judicial Authority.

Learned Counsel for workman has further referred to another judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of

Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, in this case also same principle has been laid down.

In another case, Union of India vs. Vishwanath Chatarjee, Civil Appeal No. 5258/2009, has also been referred to by

the workman side, in this respect.

As regards, the first contention of the Learned Counsel for workman that originally two charges were

levelled and other charges were added later on. I see no illegality in this respect, the department is within its rights to

add, amend or alter charges on the basis of evidence which surface during course of time.

There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a departmental enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and

the enquiry officer is not expected to work as a representative of department rather he has to work independently.

Further, the settled proposition of law, with respect to proof of charges in a departmental enquiry is different

from that in a criminal trial.

Following judgments are being referred to in this respect.

Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive

and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S.

Corpn. Ltd. vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255.

Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature:

Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove

the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a

criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer

performs a quasijudicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there

had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While

doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant

facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on

the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013

SC 1513 (paras 10, 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)

In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161

(i4i) State Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T.

Srinivas, (2004) 7 SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7067

Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan

Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 (vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang

Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that

"the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects.

Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. Crime is an

act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a departmental

proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his

misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict

standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding.

Criminal Proceedings and the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."

In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are

quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also

different.

In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575

(Allahabad High Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has

been drawn as under: "The two proceedings i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They

operate in different fields and have different objectives. The object of criminal proceedings is to inflict

appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent

departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule relating to appreciation of

evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on the prosecution and

unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot be convicted

by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent

officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to

standard of proof in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental

enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has

also no application in the departmental enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for

violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender

shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of

public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.

There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of criminal case. "

Now looking into the evidence on record and enquiry report, the statements of the account holders,

corroborating the charges, documents in form of deposit slips, further corroborating the statements of the depositors,

the absence of entries with respect to deposit in the bank records also corroborating the charges, in some of the

charges in which forging of signature has been alleged, in using the instruments for withdrawal of money, the

handwriting has not been examined. Hence, it may be taken that these charges are not proved but remaining charges

in which there are allegations that the workman received amounts from account holders for deposit in their accounts

but did not deposit these amounts in the respective accounts of the account holders are held proved and finding of the

enquiry officer as well concurrence by the competent authority with respect to proof of charges in this respect cannot

be faulted with. With these findings, additional issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Additional Issue No. 2,

It has been submitted on behalf of workman that many workmen namely, Sanjay Satale, Ganesh Sharma,

Shiv Ram Khrade, Dilip Patil, Mahendra Kumar Sahu, Satya Narayan who were involved in similar kinds of

misconducts involving in amounts greater than what is alleged against the workman were awarded lesser punishment

by appellate authority. Hence, the present workman deserves parity.

It is further the case of the workman that these workmen were also dismissed from services by competent

authority but their punishment was changed from dismissal to compulsory retirement by the appellate authority.

Learned Counsel for Bank has opposed this argument. No doubt, the charges proved are acts of moral

turpitude, they relates to lack of honesty and integrity on the part of workman, award of punishment is within the

domain of the appointing authority and appellate authority and until and unless it is shown that punishment is

shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved, there is no occasion for this Tribunal to interfere.

Following cases have been referred to in this respect.

Hon‘ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing

about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:

―The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally

substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the

7068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it

would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the

penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed

appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.‖

In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon‘ble Apex Court has observed that:

―6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be

disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a

conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the

relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier,

the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline

required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent person concerned

works.‖

In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon‘ble Apex Court on review of

a long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law

summarized the legal position in the following words:

―11.

The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not

interfere with the administrators‘ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or

was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral

standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the

correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its

decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the

deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.

12.

To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.

Further, to shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by

recording cogent reasons in support thereof.‖

In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal

position as follows:

―8.

……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of

disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the

same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.‖

In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon‘ble Supreme Court

stated that:

―The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless

shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.

Hon‘ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia M.

Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that

―The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the

High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority,

and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such

discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of

the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or

appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature

of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous

penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works.

Ordinarily the court or the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.

This extract is taken from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4

SCC 584 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 416 at page 587

7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence

led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on

record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the

question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for

interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings

of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where

they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7069

could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however

interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations

have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous

considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996)

32 ATC 44] , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806] , Bank of

India v. Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of

Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [(2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144] .)

In Air India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed

that:

―Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence

is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that

discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of

confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.‖

In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001 SC

3645 Hon‘ble Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona

fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that:

―Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective

facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding

trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.‖

The only ground remains now is that of parity, in my considered view the disciplinary authority took a very

lenient way with respect to the workman, these punishments were altered. Only this ground is not sufficient to

interfere with the punishment of the workman, in the case in hand, the misconducts proved are series of acts

involving lack of integrity and honesty and acts of moral turpitude. I find the punishment not so disproportionate

to the charges proved to warrant interference and also not a fit case to grant parity.

Additional issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.

In light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.-

AWARD

Holding the action of the management of Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank in terminating the service of

workman Shri Shankar Singh Bamaniya w.e.f. 07.10.2014, is legal, proper and justified, he is held entitled to

no relief.‖

―RC/05/2015 is dismissed.‖

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 06-10-2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2026.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

Hkkjrh; LVsV बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a73/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/41/2015-अइअर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 73/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12011/41/2015- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

7070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/73/2015

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

The General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank

Karmchari Sangathan,

F-1, Karmchari Tripti Vihar,

Opp. Engg. College, Ujjain (M.P.)

Workman

Versues

The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office, L.H.O.,

Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal (M.P.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 01^st day of October - 2025)

As per letter dated 01/09/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-

12011/41/2015-(IR(B-I)) dt. 01/09/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:

―क्या श्रमसंघ राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक कममचारी संगठन द्वारा श्री बऱवंत ससंह गौड़ की स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ इंडडया द्वारा

द ंनाक 30.04.10 को की गई बर्ामस्तगी के बा , बैंक के दहस्से की भववष्ट्य ननधि के अंश को ब्याज सदहत मांगना

न्यायोधचत है? यद हां तो प्रार्थी ककस अनुतोष का भागी है।?‖

Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and

defense.

The undisputed facts are mainly that, the workman Balwant Singh Gaud was dismissed by the Bank for

misconduct which was found proved against him after a departmental enquiry. This dismissal was effective from

03.04.2010. The Workman raised a dispute in this respect. A reference case No. R/103/2012 proceeded before this

Tribunal and is pending disposal according to the Management. The workman alleges that after dismissal, the

Management did not pay him the employer‘s contribution which the Management contributed towards his Provident

Fund which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary on the part of the Management.

The case of the Management is that according to the Circular No. PA/CIR/27 dated 11.02.1985 and

Circular No. PA/CIR/137 dated 23.09.1986 when a employee is dismissed from the service the Bank‘s Contribution

to his provident fund shall not be payable to him. Bank has also pleaded that, payment of employees contribution

shall be subject to the final order in the reference case which is against dismissal of the Workman.

The Workman side has filed photocopy documents admitted by Management which are Exhibit W-1 to W-

6 to be referred to as and when require.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel for Workman. Learned Counsel for Management

was not available. I have gone through the record.

In the light of the aforesaid circular which provides that Banks contribution to Provident Fund of an

Employee will not be paid to him on his dismissal, the Management of Bank is held justified in not paying the

Banks Contribution to the Provident Fund amount of the Workman till his dismissal is set-aside by a

Competent Forum.

The reference stands answered accordingly.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 01/10/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7071

नइ ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2027.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a103/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/73/2016-अइअर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 103/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/73/2016- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R103/2017

Present: P.K. Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

General Secretary,

Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank

Karamchari Sangathan,

F-I, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,

Ujjain (M.P.)

Workman

Versues

1.

Assistant General Manager,

SBI, Region-II, RBO-V,

Y.N. Road,

Indore (M.P.)

2.

Branch Manager,

SBI, 5, Y.N. Road,

Indore (M.P.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 29^th day of September - 2025)

As per letter dated 09/08/2017 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-12012/73/2016 (IR(B-I))

dt. 09/08/2017. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the action of the management of Asstt. General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-II, Indore & Branch

Manager, State Bank of India, Y.N. Road, Indore in terminating the services of Sh. Kamlesh Ankoliya,

Peon/Messenger w.e.f. 16.08.2012 is legal & or justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?‖

Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and defense.

Case of the Workman is mainly that, he was engage by the State Bank of Indore through the Branch Manager on

01.05.2000 as a Peon on daily basis and worked till 16.08.2012 when he was disengaged by the Bank without any notice or

compensation which is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. Hence, unjust, illegal and arbitrary. It has been requested

that holding his termination as unjust and illegal, he be held entitled to be reinstated with back wages and benefit.

7072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Case of Management is mainly that, the workman was never appointed against any sanctioned vacancy, following

recruitment process. He never worked continuously for 240 days in any year. The State Bank of Indore was taken over by State

Bank of India vide notification effective from 29.11.2010. Accordingly, it has been prayed that, the reference be answered against

the Workman.

The Workman has filed photocopy documents which are not admitted by Management. He did not care to prove these

documents. He did not even file his affidavit or affidavit of any witness from his side in support of his case. Management has also

not filed any affidavit of its witness.

None appeared for the parties at the time of argument. No written arguments were filed. I have gone through the record.

The reference itself is the issued for determination in the case in hand.

The initial burden to prove his case is on the Workman in which he has failed, hence holding his case not proved the

reference stands answered against the Workman.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 29/09/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नइ ददल्ली, 18 नवम् बर, 2025

का.अ. 2028.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार सीमेंट कॉृोरेिन ऑफ़ आंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबि जनयोजकों और सीमेंट मज़दूर यूजनयन के बीच ऄनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 50/2014, 02/2016,

16/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

18.11.2025 को प्राप्त हुअ था l

[सं. एल-29012/2/2014-अइअर(एम)]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 18th November, 2025

S.O. 2028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 50/2014, 02/2016, 16/2019) 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 Cement Corporation of India and Cement Mazdoor Union which was received along with

soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 18.11.2025.

[No. L-29012/2/2014-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

1. NO. CGIT/LC/R/50/2014

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

The President,

Cement Mazdoor Union,

Saifi Villa, Opp. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,

Veer Park Road, Neemuch (M.P.)

Workmen

Vs

The General Manager,

Cement Corporation of India,

Nayagaon Cement Factory,

Nayagaon, Distt. Neemuch (M.P.)

Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7073

WITH

2. NO. CGIT/LC/A/02/2016

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The President,

Cement Mazdoor Union,

Saifi Villa, Opp. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,

Veer Park Road, Neemuch (M.P.)

Workmen

Vs

The General Manager,

Cement Corporation of India,

Nayagaon Cement Factory,

Nayagaon, Distt. Neemuch (M.P.)

Management

&

3. NO. CGIT/LC/A/16/2019

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S..(Retd)

The President,

Cement Mazdoor Union,

Saifi Villa, Opp. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,

Veer Park Road, Neemuch (M.P.)

Workmen

Vs

The General Manager,

Cement Corporation of India,

Nayagaon Cement Factory,

Nayagaon, Distt. Neemuch (M.P.)

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 19^th day of September- 2025)

In case R/50/2014, the Central Government:

As per letter dated 16/05/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per

Notification No. L-29012/2/2014 (IR(M)) dt. 16/05/2014. The dispute under reference relates to:

―Whether the action of the management of Cement Corporation of India, Nayagaon Cement Factory,

Neemuch in not regularizing the service of Shri Gheesalal Sharma S/o Ramnivas Sharma & 39 others

even after completing 240 days in a calendar year is justified. If not, what relief these workmen are

entitled for?‖

In the case A-02/2016:

The Workman through their Union, have filed an Application under section 33-A of the Act seeking

protection against their dismissal from service by the management on the ground that the management has made

preparations for terminating their services after they have raised a dispute above noted, pending before this Tribunal.

7074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

They be restrained from doing so during pendency of the dispute before this Tribunal in light of Section 33-A of the

Act.

In the case A-16/2019:

The Workman Union has again filed an Application under section 33-A of the Act, with a case that the

management has proposed to transfer the assets of the company to another company for which they have issued

advertisement there, this act is in violation of Section 33-A of the Act. The Workman Union has sought protection

against this action of management.

Since all the disputes are interrelated and parties are same, they have been consolidated vide order of this

Tribunal and case R-50/2014 has been made leading case, all the proceedings have been recorded in this case.

The case of the Workman Union with respect to the reference, above referred, is mainly that the members

of Union are 40 in number are working as security guards in the establishment of Management Corporation since last

so many years with all sincerity and honesty. The Management Corporation has been deducting their provident fund

contributions and is depositing with its contribution in the Provident Fund Trust created by the Corporation, treating

them as their employees. These workmen have been shown in records of the management as employees engaged and

paid by the contractors, supplied by these contractors at the site of Management Corporation, to work as guard. The

management has directly paid them salary also from December, 2011 to May, 2012 from their account. The

management has appointed 51 of their employees as guards and the applicant/workman as well 61 other guards have

been shown to be appointed through contractors as contract employees for the similar nature of post and job.

It is further the case of the Workman Union that the applicant/workmen have been regularly discharging their

duties as ‗Guard‘ at the sites of Management Corporation like their regular employees (security guards) for more than

240 days in every year. The management has now started preparations and is threatening to retrench the

applicant/workmen when they raised the dispute with respect to their regularization and other benefits. Thereafter the

Union, raised a dispute in this respect before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Bhopal, after failure of

conciliation, the reference was made by the Central Government to this Tribunal.

According, to the Workman/Union, this action of Management Corporation in not regularizing the

applicant/workman and not granting him permanent status inspite of his continuous service is illegal, arbitrary and

unjust and unlawful. The Union has thus prayed, holding the action of management illegal and arbitrary, the

applicant/workman be held entitled to benefits admissible to permanent and regular employees, at par with regularly

appointed security guards with all back wages and benefits.

The case of the Management Corporation is that firstly, the reference is not maintainable before this

Tribunal because there is no Employer-Employee relation between the applicant/workmen and the Management

Corporation, they have never been appointed by the Management Corporation. The management was out of function

since 1997 and was referred to Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). No business activity was

ever conducted by the Corporation since 1997, they have granted voluntary retirement to their employees. Their

factory site has also been closed w.e.f. 31.10.2008. In such premise, there is no employment left with the corporation

nor is there any future scope for employment.

It is further the case of Corporation that for the safety of Plant and Machinery as well and their Assets of

the Corporation, service of security agencies were taken, hence the Corporation outsourced a security work to external

agencies. These applicant/workmen are the security guards supplied and deputed by the outsourcing agency to the

Corporation as contract workers, hence their regularization, as such is not permissible in law, regarding deposit of

Provident Fund by the Corporation in their Provident Fund Trust, the Corporation has pleaded that, it was done

because the outsourcing agencies were not regular in depositing the Provident Fund dues and the direct payments for

some months as mentioned by Workman Union were made to the security guards (outsourced) because the Contractor

did not pay them the wages for that period, hence, this payment was also made as per employer.

The management has accordingly prayed that the reference be answered against the Workman Union and the

Petitions under section 33-A also be dismissed.

In evidence, the Workman Union has filed the affidavit of Shri Gheesalal Sharma and Shailendra Singh

Thakur, both are applicant/workmen. The workman, Shailendra Singh Thakur who is the President of Union also has

been cross-examined by management on his affidavit.

Management Corporation filed affidavit of its witness Mr. Jayant Vishwas, he has been cross-examined by

the Workman Union.

Both the sides have filed bunch of documents which are photocopy, Annual Report of the Corporation for

2011-2012, Order of Hon‘ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 6998/2007. Management has filed documents which

are mainly related to the Work Agreements with different outsourcing agencies in different years for the supply of

security guards, the Registration Certificates of the Management Corporation as per employment and the outsourcing

agency, documents related to payments made by the Corporation, the statement with respect to Provident Fund

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : नवम् बर 29, 2025/ऄग्रहायण 8, 1947

7075

deposits of the workmen firstly, by the Management corporation in their Provident Fund Trust and thereafter by the

outsourcing agencies since 2021 till 2024. The Management has also filed the Regulation with respect to their

Provident Fund Trust, the documents will be referred to as and when required.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the workman Union Mr. Subodh Agrawal and Mr. Amit

Khatri, Learned Counsel for the Management Corporation. Management has filed written arguments also which is

part of record.

The main submission from the side of Workman Union is that the applicant/workmen are working as security

guards to look after the security at different sites of the Management Corporation and have been discharging duties

like the regular security guards appointed by the management, their work is of permanent and perennial nature, which

is itself evident from the fact, that they have been continuously working with the management on their sites following

instruction of management since 1999 till date, only the contractors have been changing in these years and not the

applicant/workmen, all these facts show that all these work contracts were sham contracts and camouflage, just to

deny the applicant/workmen the benefits admissible to them as regular and permanent employee. Learned Counsel

has further submits that this Tribunal is not without power to lift the veil.

Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that the Corporation is sick unit and has manpower through

security agencies thus, to look after their Plants, Machinery and Assets at different places. There is no prohibition in

the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act to do so simply by working on the site of the management under

directions of Management Authorities and deposit of Provident Fund dues by management in their Provident Fund

Trust or payment of wages by management for some months as claimed by the Workman Union will not make them

employees of the Management Corporation. Since, there is no Employer-Employee relation between the

applicant/workmen and Management Corporation, they cannot claim regularization.

Facts in this case are almost not disputed. It is not disputed that the applicant/workmen have been supplied

by different outsourcing agencies as contract workers. This is also not disputed that they have been working at the site

of Management Corporation under the directions of the Management Corporation and performing duties done by the

regularly appointed security guards right since 1999 till date.

Case of the management is that they are within their powers to employ contract workers through, outsourcing

agencies which they have done. Section 2 (ra) which defines Unfair Labour Practice, Section 25-T & 25-U,

Prohibition of Unfair Labour Practice, Schedule 5 provides a list of Acts, which are Unfair Labour Practice by

Management.

Section 2 (ra) which defines Unfair Labour Practice is being reproduced as follows:-

―(ra)

―unfair labour practice‖ means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;‖

Schedule 5 of the Act which enumerates unfair labour practice is

also being reproduced as follows:-

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, where 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 workman, that is to

say:—

(a)

discharging or punishing a workman, because he urged other workmen to join or organise a trade

union;

7076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA NOVEMBER 29, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 8, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(b)

discharging or dismissing a workman for taking part in any strike (not being as trike 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 workman 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;

(g)

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 workman, thereby leading to a

disproportionate punishment.

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 workman 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 workman 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.‖

Section 25 (T & U) of the Act is reproduced as follows:-

25T. Prohibition of unfair labour practice.—No employer or workman or a trade union, whether registered under

the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (18 of 1926), or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice.

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.

From perusal of Schedule and provisions mentioned above, Act of engaging contract labours, casual or

temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of status, privileges of

permanent workman is unfair labour practice adopted by management which have been prohibited under section 25-T

of the Act, section 25-U of the Act provides penal consequences for such an unfair labour practice too.

The Act may have civil and penal consequences both. Same is the case with unfair labour practice, the penal

consequences of unfair labour practice is provided in the Act but civil consequences are not provided. This fact does

not denude the Courts and Tribunals under the Act to undo the effects of such Act like unfair labour practice which is

prohibited by the Act.