8040 GI/2025

(7411)

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. 48]

नई ददल् ली, ददसम् बर 7—ददसम् बर 13, 2025, िजनवार/अग्रहायण 16—अग्रहायण 22, 1947

No. 48] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 7—DECEMBER 13, 2025, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA 16––AGRAHAYANA 22, 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)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 3 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2112.—केन्रीय सरकार, श्री चंरदीृ कुमार झा, उृ महाजनदेिक, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग, जवत्त

मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार को भारतीय ररजवव बैंक अजधजनयम, 1934 (1934 का 2) की धारा 45-झक की उृ-धारा (7)

के उृबंधों के अंतगवत गजर-बैंककग जवत्तीय कंृजनयों द्वारा की गई अृीलों ृर जनणवय लेने के जलए नामोददष्ट करती हज। इसे

आम सूचना के जलए प्रकाजित दकया जाता हज।

[ई. फा. सं. 1/27/2019-बीओए-II]

ज्ञानतोष रॉय, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-13122025-268470

CG-DL-W-13122025-268470

7412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2025

S.O. 2112.—Shri Chandradeep Kumar Jha, Deputy Director General in the Department of Financial

Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is designated by the Central Government to decide appeals

preferred by non-banking financial companies under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 45-IA of the

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934). This is published for general information.

[e. F. No. 1/27/2019-BOA.II]

JNANATOSH ROY, Under Secy.

जवदेि मंत्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 4 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2113.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि।

एतद् द्वारा, केंर सरकार, ददसंबर 4, 2025 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनववहन करने के जलए जवदेि में भारतीय

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

हज:

क्रम

सं.

अजधकारी का नाम और ृद

जमिन

ृोस्ट्ट जजसमें

सहायक कांसुलर

अजधकारी के प ृ में जनयुि दकया गया हज

श्री प्रवीण देवड़ा,सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास, लॉस एंजजल्स

श्री आदिव कुमार झा,सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारतीय दूतावास, डमस्ट्कस

श्री देवेन्र, सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी

भारतीय दूतावास, कोृेनहेगन

[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2025(39)]

तरुण कुमार, अवर सजचव [सीृीवी-II]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 4th December, 2025

S.O. 2113.—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 December 4, 2025:

S. No.

Name & Rank of the Officer

Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant

Consular Officer

Mr. Praveen Devra, Assistant Section Officer

Consulate General of India, Los Angeles

Mr. Adarsh Kumar Jha, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Damascus

Mr. Devender, Assistant Section Officer

Embassy of India, Copenhagen

[F. No. T.4330/01/2025 (39)]

TARUN KUMAR, Under Secretary (CPV-II)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7413

ृरमाणु ऊजाव जवभाग

नई ददल्ली, 7 अक् तूबर, 2025

का.आ. 2114.—साववजजनक ृररसर (अनाजधकृत अजधभोजगयों की बेदखली) अजधजनयम, 1971 (1971 का

40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंर सरकार एतद्दवारा नीचे दी गई ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में

उजल्लजखत अजधकारी को, जो सरकार का राजृजत्रत अजधकारी हज, उि अजधजनयम के प्रयोजन के जलए संृदा अजधकारी

जनयुि करती हज, जो उि ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में संगत प्रजवजष्टयों में जनर्ददष्ट साववजजनक ृररसरों के संबंध में उि

अजधजनयम द्वारा या उसके अधीन प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करेगा और संृदा अजधकारी के कतव्य

ों का ृालन करेगा।

अजधकारी का ृदनाम

(1)

साववजजनक ृररसर की श्रेजणयााँ और अजधकार क्षेत्र की

स्ट्थानीय सीमाएाँ

(2)

श्री सुररदर कुमार, वज्ञाजनक अजधकारी/जी, ग्लोबल सेंटर फॉर

न्यूजक्लयर एनजी ृाटवनरजिृ (जीसीएनईृी), ृरमाणु ऊजाव जवभाग,

बहादुरगढ़,

हररयाणा -124505

ग्लोबल सेंटर फॉर न्यूजक्लयर एनजी ृाटवनरजिृ

(जीसीएनईृी), ृरमाणु ऊजाव जवभाग, बहादुरगढ़,

हररयाणा -124505 के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण में या

उससे संबंजधत ृररसर

[फा. सं. 44017/2/2025/GCNEP/R&D-1/13245]

एच. एल. जाधव, अवर सजचव

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2025

S.O. 2114.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in

column (1) of the Table below, being a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be the Estate officer for the purpose

of the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties of Estate Officer, by or under the

said Act, in respect of Public Premises specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Table.

Designation of the Officer

(1)

Categories of Public Premise & local limits

of jurisdiction

(2)

Shri. Surinder Kumar, Scientific Officer/G, Global Centre for

Nuclear Energy Partnership (GCNEP), Department of Atomic

Energy, Bahadurgarh, Haryana -124505

Premises

belonging

under

the

administrative control of Global Centre for

Nuclear

Energy

Partnership

(GCNEP),

Department of Atomic Energy, Bahadurgarh,

Haryana -124505

[F. No. 44017/2/2025/GCNEP/R&D-1/13245]

H. L. JADHAV, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 12 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2115.—साववजजनक स्ट्थान (अनजधकृत अजधभोजगयों की बेदखली) अजधजनयम, 1971 (1971 का 40)

की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (1) में उजल्लजखत

अजधकाररयों को, जो सरकार के राजृजत्रत अजधकारी हैं, उि अजधजनयम के प्रयोजन के जलए संृदा अजधकारी जनयुि

7414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

करती हज, जो उि सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) की तत्सस्ट्थानी प्रजवजष्टयों में जवजनर्ददष्ट साववजजनक स्ट्थान के संबंध में उि अजधजनयम

द्वारा या उसके अधीन संृदा अजधकारी को प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उस ृर अजधरोजृत कतव्य

ों का ृालन

करेंगे।

अजधकारी का ृदनाम

(1)

साववजजनक स्ट्थान की श्रेजणयााँ और अजधकार क्षेत्र

की स्ट्थानीय सीमाएाँ

(2)

अृर जनदेिक (प्रचालन-I)/

जनदेिक (कार्ममक एवं प्रिासन)/

मु्‍य प्रिासजनक एवं लेखा अजधकारी,

ृरमाणु खजनज अन्वेषण एवं अनुसंधान जनदेिालय (एएमडी),

ृरमाणु ऊजाव जवभाग,

1-10-153-156, बेगमृेट,

हजदराबाद- 500016

तेलंगाना

हजदराबाद, तेलंगाना में ृरमाणु ऊजाव जवभाग के

एएमडी के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रण के अंतगवत या उससे

संबंजधत ृररसर।

[फा. सं. 12/2(9)/2022-I&M(AMD/14920]

सुरेि एन.एम., अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2025

S.O. 2115.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in

column (1) of the Table below being Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be the Estate officers for the purpose of

the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer, by or under

the said Act, in respect of Public Premises specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Table.

Designation of the Officer

(1)

Categories of Public Premised & local

limits of jurisdiction

(2)

Additional Director (Operations-I)/

Director (Personnel & Administration)/

Chief Administrative and Accounts Officer,

Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research

(AMD),

Department of Atomic Energy,

1-10-153-156, Begumpet,

Hyderabad- 500 016,

Telangana.

Premises

belonging

under

the

administrative control of AMD, Department

of Atomic Energy in Hyderabad, Telangana.

[F. No. 12/2(9)/2022-I&M(AMD/14920]

SURESH N. M., Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7415

सड़क ृररवहन और राजमागव मंत्रालय

(राजभाषा अनुभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 26 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2116.—केंरीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 के

जनयम 10 के उृजनयम (4) के अनुसरण में क्षेत्रीय कायावलय, भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमागव प्राजधकरण, ओजडिा, जजसके 80%

से अजधक कमवचाररयों ने हहदी में कायवसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।

[फा. सं. ई.-12012/1/2023-जवजवध/हहदी]

सी. एन. हसह, संयुक् त सजचव

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Official Language Section)

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2025

S.O. 2116.— In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notify Regional Office, National Highway Authority of

India, Odisha, where more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E. 12012/1/2023-Misc. /Hindi]

C.N. SINGH, Jt. Secy.

उृभोिा मामले, खाद्य और साववजजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय

(खाद्य और साववजजनक जवतरण जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 26 नवम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2117.— केन्रीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

10 के उृ जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में उृभोिा मामले, खाद्य और साववजजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय (खाद्य और साववजजनक

जवतरण जवभाग) के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायावलय, जजनके 80 प्रजतित या उससे अजधक कमवचारीवृन्द ने

जहन्दी का कायवसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को राजृत्र में अजधसूजचत करती हज:-

क्र.सं.

अजधसूजचत दकए जाने वाला कायावलय

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम, मंडल कायावलय, कोकराझार

[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-हहदी(321924)]

राजेन्र कुमार, संयुक् त सजचव

MINISTRY of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution

(Department of Food & Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2025

S.O. 2117.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of

the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Food & Public Distribution), whereof

80% or more staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:

S. No.

Office to be notified

Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Kokrajhar

[F. No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi (321924)]

RAJENDER KUMAR, Jt. Secy.

7416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2118.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार सतना सीमेंट वक्सव के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री कन्हजया हसह, सतना सीमेंट फजक्री और कुंवारी मजदूर

कांग्रेस; श्री अजिनी कुमार हसह, श्री िजि कुमार हसह, श्री ब्रह्मानंद हसह, श्री राम नक्षत्र हसह, श्री अिोक हसह,

श्री अजभनव हसह, श्री अजनल हसह, श्री राज गोहवद हसह, श्री जुगनू हसह और श्री सत्सय नारायण महतो के बीच अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 11/2017) को जजसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-160]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2118.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 11/2017) 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

Satna Cement Works and Shri Kanahiya Singh, Satna Cement Factory & Quwari Mazdoor Congress;

Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Shri Sashi Kumar Singh, Shri Bramhanand Singh, Shri Ram Nakshtra Singh,

Shri Ashok Singh, Shri Abhinav Singh, Shri Anil Singh, Shri Raj Govind Singh, Shri Jugnu Singh and Shri

Satya Narayan Mahtoo which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 02.12.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-160]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/A/11/2017

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

1. The General Secretary,

Kanahiya Singh,

Satna Cement Factory &

Quwari Mazdoor Congress,

Office Sagmaniya Colony, Satna (MP)

2. Ashwani Kumar Singh,

Mining Engineer,

Satna Cement Factory, Satna

3. Sashi Kumar Singh,

Clerk, Satna Cement Factory, Satna

4. Bramhanand Singh, Fitter,

Satna Cement Factory, Satna

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7417

5. Ram Nakshtra Singh,

Driver, Satna Cement Factory, Satna

6. Ashok Singh,

Seezer fetter, Satna Cement Factory, Satna

7. Abhinav Singh,

Pump Operator, Satna Cement Factory, Satna

8. Anil Singh,

Attend Stores, Satna Cement Factory, Satna

9. Raj Govind Singh, Badli Attender,

Satna Cement Factory, Satna

10. Jugnu Singh,

Pump Operator, Satna Cement Factory, Satna

11. Satya Narayan Mahtoo,

Attender Badli, Satna Cement Factory

Satna, [All employee resident at

Sagmaniya Colony, District Satna (M. P.)]

Workman

Versus

Satna Cement Works, Satna M.P.

Management

(J U D G M E N T)

(Passed on this 8^th day of October, 2025)

The applicants who were originally ten in numbers but since three of them i.e., Applicant No. 1 (Ashwani

Kumar Singh), Applicant No. 2 (Sashi Kumar Singh) and Applicant No. 4 (Ram Nakshtra Singh), have raised a

separate dispute also, on the basis of which three separate references are pending before this Tribunal which are

R/12/2020, R/13/2020 and R/14/2020, hence their claims are not being considered in this case, they will be

considered in their respective cases mentioned above, which are pending before this Tribunal.

This is the petition under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‗the Act‘), filed by the

Secretary of Satna Cement Factory & Quwari Mazdoor Congress through its General Secretary and the applicant

workman against M/s Satna Cements with a case that the case of these applicants was espoused by the Secretary of

Union and Reference Case No. R/34/2010 had been pending before this Tribunal with respect to their claims on the

basis of reference made by the Central Government to this Tribunal after conciliation failed between the applicants

Union and management.

The management terminated the services of the applicants‘ workmen by way of an oral order during pendency

of the said dispute which is in violation of Section 33A of the Act, hence is unjust, illegal and arbitrary.

It has been prayed that holding this action of management of M/s Satna Cement, against law because it was

without the approval of this Tribunal, the petition be allowed.

Case of the management is that during the said case R/34/2010 has been finally decided by this Tribunal by its

judgment and award dated 15.09.2021 and a writ petition has been filed by the management against the said judgment

and award before Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. which is pending. The operation of the judgment and award has been

stayed by Hon‘ble High Court.

Also, it is the case of the management that the applicants in the present case were not a party to the dispute in

the said case R/34/2010, hence, their termination is not in violation of Section 33A of the Act, also, it has been pleaded

that this petition has been filed after 4^1/2 years of their termination, hence it is barred by unexplained delay and latches

on the part of applicants.

Both the sides have filed photocopy documents and affidavits, to be referred to as and when required.

I have heard arguments of the Learned Counsel for the applicants Mr. R. K. Soni and Learned Counsel, Mr. R.

7418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

B. Tiwari for the Management. The management has filed written submission also. I have gone through written

submission and the record as well.

As it is apparent from perusal of the record that objection of management is on two points, firstly, that the

petition is barred by unexplained delay and latches on the part of petitioners and secondly, the petitioners were not a

party in the dispute concerned as R/34/2010.

As regards, Section 33A of the Act, provides as under:-

33A. Special provision for adjudication as to whether conditions of service, etc., changed

during pendency of proceedings.—Where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33

during the pendency of proceedings before a conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour

Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a

complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner,—

(a) to such conciliation officer or Board, and the conciliation officer or Board shall take

such complaint into account in mediating in, and promoting the settlement of, such industrial

dispute; and

(b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and on receipt of

such complaint, the arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be,

shall adjudicate upon the complaint as if it were a dispute referred to or pending before it, in

accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall submit his or its award to the appropriate

Government and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly.

A bare perusal of this section states that there is no limitation provided in the Act for filing of the petition,

hence, the ground of delay cannot be accepted and relief cannot be denied to the petitioner only on this ground, if their

case and claim is otherwise found just and proper.

As regards, the second ground, management has filed photocopy notices, which were issued to them by the

Assistant Labour Commissioner during conciliation proceedings, according to management none of these notices

contained the name of petitioners.

According to the petitioners, the dispute in case R/34/2010 was raised by the Secretary of the Union who is an

applicant in the present case also. List of the workmen affected in the said case was adjudication. A copy has been filed

by the petitioners which is a certified copy obtained by them from the file of case R/34/2010. This list contains the

name of the applicants also.

The management does not denied that services of the petitioners were terminated by them in 2013, when the

reference case was pending before this Tribunal, the reference case is still pending before Hon‘ble High Court in the

aforesaid writ.

In light of these facts the action of the management of Satna Cement Factory in terminating the services of the

petitioners without approval of this Tribunal is held in violation of Section 33A of the Act and petitioners are held to be

reinstated to their original posts on which they were working and also held entitled to all the attendant benefits with

regard to back wages and other benefits, treating them to be in continuous service of management.

Hence, on the basis of above discussion and findings, the petition is disposed with following directions.

ORDER

The action of management of Satna Cement Factory in dismissing the applicant workmen except applicants No.

1, 2 & 4 (whose claims are pending adjudication in other separate cases mentioned earlier), during the pendency

of case R/34/2010 without approval of this Tribunal is held in violation of Section 33-A of the Act. The

applicants are reinstated in service and shall be deemed to be in continuous service of the management. They are

further held entitled to all the backwages and consequential benefits from the date of their termination till the

date of execution of award, to be paid by management within 30 days from the date of publication of the award,

failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till payment.

No order as to cost.

DATE:- 08-10-2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7419

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2119.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार एयरृोटव अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया; अृिॉट यूरटजलटी सर्मवसेज़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रीमती कजवता

बग्गन के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स

न.- 48/2020) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-161]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2119.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 48/2020) 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 Airport Authority of India; Upshot Utility Services and Shrimati Kavita Baggan which was received along

with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-161]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/48/2020

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.(Retd.)

Shrimati Kavita Baggan,

House No.1105, Shivaji Ward,

Gandhi Nagar,

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)

Workman

The Terminal Manager,

Airports Authority of India,

O/o The Airport Director,

Raja Bhoj Airport,

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh ) - 462 03

The General Manager,

Upshot Utility Services, H-20,

Jeevanandam Salai, 13th Sector,

K.K. Nagar, Chennai (Tamil Nadu)-600 078

Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 9^th day of October, 2025)

As per letter dated 31/07/2020 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. J-1(1-38)/2020–IR dt. 31/07/2020. The dispute under reference relates to:

7420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“क्या ननयोजक अऩसोट यूटटलऱटी सर्विसेस, भोऩाऱ (जो कक भारतीय र्वमानऩत्तन प्राधधकरण, भोऩाऱ की स्थाऩना में

कायिरत है) व्दारा कमिकार श्रीमती कर्वता बग्गन ऩत्नी स्वगीय संजय बग्गन को टदनांक 08.06.2019 से नौकरी से

बर्ािस्त ककया जाना, र्वधधक उऩ से न्यायोधित है? यटद नहीं तो, वह ककस ऱाभ को और कब से ऩाने की अधधकारी है?”

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.

According to the workman, she was appointed in place of her deceased husband who was earlier working

with the management and continued in service of the management from 06 October, 2017 to 08 June, 2019, she was

dismissed on 08.06.2019 by management without any notice or compensation, which is in violation of Section 25-F and

25-G of the Act. The workman has further prayed that holding her termination is against law, she be reinstated with

back wages and benefits.

The case of the Airport Authority is that they had not appointed the workman at any point of time. They

have granted contract for mechanized environment support services in the Bhopal Airport premise to the management

No. 2, M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services, their agreement period was to expire on 36 months from the date of agreement

i.e., 01.08.2018. Infact, the workman was employed by the Contractor Agency.

The contractor M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services, did not appear inspite of services, hence case proceeded ex-

parte against them.

In evidence, the workman has filed her affidavit as her Examination-in-chief, she has been cross-examined by

Airport Authority. Airport Authority has filed affidavit of its witness, Mr. Dharam Raj Verma as his Examination-in-

chief. He has been cross-examined by workman side. Management has filed and proved Ex-M/1, which is the

appointment letter of the workman and Ex-M/2 the agreement. The workman has filed and proved certified statement

of her bank account. No evidence has been adduced by the outsourcing agency, M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services.

I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Ravish Devaliya and Mr. Pranay Choubey,

Learned Counsel for Airport Authority of India. None appeared for the outsourcing agency. I have gone through the

argument and record as well.

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

Both the sides have corroborated their pleadings in their affidavit as their Examination-in-chief.

The statement of account of the workman shows that money has been transferred in her account on regular

basis by the outsourcing agency and not from the account of Airport Authority of India. The appointment letter to the

workman has been issued by the outsourcing agency.

The management as Airport Authority does not dispute the allegation of the workman that she worked for 240

days and more in every year. The workman has corroborated her this allegation in her statement which is supported by

her statement of account.

From above discussion, it is established that the workman was infact employed by the outsourcing agency in

2018 and not by the management of Airport Authority of India, hence, there is no employer-employee relation between

the workman and Airport Authority rather the workman is held to be employee of the outsourcing agency, M/s Up-

Shorts Utility Services.

Since, it is not disputed that the workman worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding her date of

termination and also that she was not paid any compensation, her termination is held in violation of Section 25-F and

25-G of the Act.

Regarding relief, keeping in view the fact that the workman worked only for two years as an employee of

outsourcing agency, this contract was to expire after 36 months of its execution, which was in 2018, a lump sum

compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of the claims of the workman to be paid to her by the outsourcing agency within

30 days from the date of publication of award, failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till

payment will meet the ends of justice, to which the workman is held entitled.

On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered as follows:-

AWARD

Holding the action of the management in dismissing workman Smt. Kavita Baggan from the job of

employer M/s Up-Shorts Utility Services, Bhopal (establishment of Airport Authority of India) w.e.f. 08.06.2019 is

illegal and unjustified, she is entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of all her claims to be paid

within 30 days from the date of publication of award, failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award

till payment.

DATE:- 09-10-2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7421

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2120.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार गुरप्रीत हसह बेदी जसक्योररटी एजेंसी बीएसृी; जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री अजय कुरे के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 28/2025) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-163]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2120.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2025) 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 Gurpreet Singh Bedi Security Agnecy BSP; Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL and Shri Ajay Kurre which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-163]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2025

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.( Retd.)

Ajay Kurre

H.No. 24, Dixit Colony, Kosa Nagar

Bhilai, Street No. 10, Near Badminton Court

Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490020

Workman

Versus

1. Gurpreet Singh Bedi Security Agency BSP,

Office No. 5, 4^rthFloor Rio Complex Laalpur

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492015

2. The Director Incharge

Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India

Bhilai, District – Durg (CG) - 490001

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 09^th day of October - 2025.)

As per letter dated 27/12/2024 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur, Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per

reference number RP-8(3-20) /2024-ES-III(ID) dt. 27/12/2024. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the demand of the workman for lumpsum relief compensation of Rupees Fifty Thousand only

(Rs 50K) is justified ? If yes, to what all remedies, is the workman entitled to in relation to the present

industrial disputes ?”

7422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. None of the

parties filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement of Defense. The workman side never appeared.

Since the initial burden to prove the case lies with the workman, and he has failed to discharge this

burden, the claim is held to be not proved. Accordingly, the reference is answered against the workman.

DATE: 09/10/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2121.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

श्री मुरली कृ्‍ण वी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 29/2025) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-164]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2121.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2025) 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 Gurpreet Singh Bedi Security Agnecy BSP; Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL and Shri Murli Krishna V which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-164]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/2025

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.( Retd.)

Murli Krishna V,

H.No. 24, Dixit Colony, Kosa Nagar

Bhilai, Street No. 10, Near Badminton Court

Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490020

Workman

Versus

1. Gurpreet Singh Bedi Security Agency BSP,

Office No. 5, 4^rthFloor RIO Complex Laalpur

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492015

2. The Director Incharge

Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India

Bhilai, District – Durg (CG) - 490001

Management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7423

AWARD

(Passed on this 09^th day of October - 2025.)

As per letter dated 27/12/2024 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur, Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per

reference number RP-8(3-21) /2024-ES.III dt. 27/12/2024. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the demand of the workman for lumpsum relief compensation of Rupees Fifty Thousand only

(Rs 50K) is justified ? If yes, to what all remedies, is the workman entitled to in relation to the present

industrial disputes ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. None of the

parties filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement of Defense. The workman side never appeared.

Since the initial burden to prove the case lies with the workman, and he has failed to discharge this

burden, the claim is held to be not proved. Accordingly, the reference is answered against the workman.

DATE: 09/10/2025

P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2122.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल; श्री दुगाव कंस्ट्रक्िन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राम लाल साहू के बीच

अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 30/2025) को

जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-165]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2122.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 30/2025) 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 Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL; Sri Durga Contruction and Shri Rum Lal Sahu which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-165]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/30/2025

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.( Retd.)

Rum Lal Sahu

Lodhipara, Ramnagar, Muktidham

Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490026

Workman

7424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

1. The Director Incharge

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Steel Authority of India

Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG)-490001

2. Sri Durga Contruction

Sangram Chowk, Bhilai

Durg, Chhattisgarh-490001

Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG) - 490001

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 09^th day of October - 2025.)

As per letter dated 23/01/2025 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur, Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per

reference number RP-08(3-3) /2025-ES dt. 23/01/2025. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the demand of the workman for lumpsum relief compensation of Rupees One Lakhs only

(Rs 1 Lakh) is justified ? If yes, to what all remedies, is the workman entitled to in relation to the present

industrial disputes ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. Learned

Counsel Mr. Sahil Bahadur Singh filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Management of Bhilai Steel Plant. None of

the parties filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement of Defense. The workman side never appeared.

Since the initial burden to prove the case lies with the workman, and he has failed to discharge this

burden, the claim is held to be not proved. Accordingly, the reference is answered against the workman.

DATE: 09/10/2025

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2123.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट, सेल; मेससव रोजहणी रांसृोटव, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री िकील खान के बीच

अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलृुर, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 32/2025) को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-166]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2123.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2025) 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 Bhilai Steel Plant, SAIL; M/s Rohini Transport, and Shri Shakeel Khan which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-166]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7425

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/32/2025

Present: P.K.Srivastava

H.J.S.( Retd.)

Shakeel Khan

Ward No. 62, New Market Station

Maroda, Civic Centre, Bhilai

District Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490006

Workman

Versus

1. The Director Incharge

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Steel Authority of India

Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG) - 492006

2. M/s Rohini Transport, BSP

T & D Division, Bhilai

Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490006

Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 09^th day of October - 2025.)

As per letter dated 23/01/2025 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur, Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per

reference number RP-8(3-2) /2025-ES.III dt. 23/01/2025. The dispute under reference related to :-

“Whether the demand of the workman for lumpsum relief compensation of Rupees One Lakhs only

(Rs 1 Lakh) is justified ? If yes, to what all remedies, is the workman entitled to in relation to the present

industrial disputes ?”

After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. Learned

Counsel Mr. K.B. Singh filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Management of M/s. Rohini Transport. None of the

parties filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement of Defense. The workman side never appeared.

Since the initial burden to prove the case lies with the workman, and he has failed to discharge this

burden, the claim is held to be not proved. Accordingly, the reference is answered against the workman.

DATE: 09/10/2025

P.K.SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2124.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससव उबलगुडी आयरन ओर माइंस (एमएमएल) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री मनसजय्या, अध्यक्ष,

बेल्लारी जजला गंज कमवचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

बैंगलोर, कैंृ कोटव हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 24/2016) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती

हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26011/17/2016-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

7426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2124.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Bangalore, Camp Court at Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to M/s. Ubbalgudi Iron Ore Mines (MML) and Sh. Manasaiah, President,

Bellary Zilla Ganj Karmikara Sangh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central

Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. L-26011/17/2016-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, CAMP

COURT At HYDERABAD

DATED

: 18^th NOVEMBER 2025

PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA B.A., LLB.

Presiding Officer

C R No. 24/2016

I Party

II Party

Sh. Manasaiah, President,

Bellary Zilla Ganj karmikara Sangh,

Shanthi Nivas, 1^st Ward, Anand Bazar,

SANDUR -583 119.

The Manager,

M/s. Ubbalgudi Iron Ore Mines (MML),

PWD Quarter, Taranagar,

Sandur, BELLARY – 583 119.

Appearances

I Party :

Sri Sivamanithan S

Advocate

II Party

Sri L Venkatarama Reddy

Advocate

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-26011/17/2016-IR(M)

dated 09.06.2016 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ―The Act‖) (14 of 1947) referred the

following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Mysore Minerals Limited (Ubbalagundi Iron ore

Mines), Sandur, Bellary in not giving relief/not paid the terminal benefits, to the workers Smt. Renuka

and 18 others (as per Annexure-D)working under M/s. Mysore Minerals Ltd (Ubbalagundi Iron ore

mines), Sandur, Bellary, is fair, legal, proper & justified? If not, to what relief the said workmen are

entitled to?‖

After registering the case the date of hearing was fixed as 12.08.2016. Notices were issued to both the

parties. Advocate Maitreyi Krishnan filed vakalath for I Party along with Claim Statement. Advocate

L Venkatarama Reddy filed vakalath for II Party and filed their Counter Statement on 11.05.2017.

Based on the rival pleadings and the schedule the matter came to be posted for Evidence of II Party.

On 22.05.2019, the II Party management examined one witness as MW 1 and fully cross-examined by the I

Party counsel. Ex M-1 to Ex M-3 were marked and closed the II Party evidence. Thereafter several

opportunities were afforded to I Party to adduce evidence but the I Party did not avail so.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7427

In the meantime, Advocate Sivamanithan S filed vakalath for I Party along with NOC of previous

counsel on record. Even though NOC vakalath was filed and sufficient time was afforded to the I Party and his

counsel and notices were sent and served. On their continued absence, the opportunity to adduce evidence was

not availed by the 1^st Party.

Barring the list bearing the names of 19 workmen received with the Central Reference. The addresses

of the individual workmen are not provided to this tribunal. Ergo individual notice to the workmen is not

made feesibel in the given case. Thus, the case set forth in the Claim Statement is not proved by the 1^st Party

workmen represented by the Union President. Under these circumstance, the only course left with is to pass a

default award in the matter, hence, the following Award is passed.

AWARD

Reference is dismissed for non-prosecution. Transmit.

(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 18.11.2025)

K P INDIRA , Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2125.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1957 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससव आर.आर. ृैंगुइंकर एंड कंृनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री सदा राम डोइफोडे के बीच अनुबंध में

जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 11/2009) को जजसा दक

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/95/2008-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 11/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M/s. R.R. Painguinkar & Co. and Shri Sada Rama Doifode which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. L-29012/95/2008-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD

Presiding Officer/Link Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/11 of 2009

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No.1 M/s. R. R. Painguinkar& Co.,

The Managing Director,

M/s. R. R. Painguinkar& Co.,

Chiraband Mines, UguemSanguem,

Goa.

7428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Mr. Sada Rama Doifode)

R/o, H.No. 27, Chiraband,

Uguem, Sanguem,

Goa.

APPEARANCES:

Management

Mr. M. S. Bandodkar

Advocate

Workmen No appearance.

At Camp Goa

AWARD

(Delivered on 19-11-2025)

This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of

Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-29012/95/2008 (IR(M) dated 04.02.2009. The terms of reference given

in the schedule are as follows:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. R. R. Painguinkar in terminating the employment of Shri Sada

Rama Doifode, Clerk w.e.f. 09/01/2007 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”

The case is called out today. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner. The Learned Counsel Mr. M.

S.Bandodkar Advocate is present on behalf of the respondent. Mr. P. Gaonkar, the General Secretary of the Union is

present before the Court and stated before the court that, he wants to withdraw his authority. Today, the case is fixed for

cross-examination of the workman but neither the representative of petitioner nor he himself is present before the court.

From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back. Although, the

Statement of Claim & the Written Statement have been filed by the parties respectively. Petitioner has also filed his

affidavit as an evidence but, petitioner has not come to the court to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as the

contents of the Statement of Claim.No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. The claim of the

petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. R. R. Painguinkar in terminating the employment of Shri Sada Rama

Doifode, Clerk w.e.f. 09/01/2007 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

At Camp Go

Sd/-

Date: 19-11-2025

Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2126.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मेससव वी.एम. सालगांवकर एंड ब्रो. प्राइवेट जलजमटेड; मेससव जव्‍णुप्रिांत एस. तार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों

और गोवा माइहनग लेबर वेलफेयर यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम

न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 23/2011) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/21/2010-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7429

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 23/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd; M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar and Goa Mining Labour Welfare

Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. L-29011/21/2010-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

MUMBA

(CAMP COURT GOA)

Present

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-23 of 2011

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

The Managing Director,

M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,

Salgaocar House, Vaco-Da-Gama,

Goa-403802.

2. M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar

Vishnu Smruti Building, Opp. Mapusa Judicial Court,

Attinho Mapusa, Bardez- Goa.

And

The General Secretary,

Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union,

Velho‘s Building

2^nd Foor, Opp. Municipal Garden,

Panji, Goa-403001.

Appearances:

For the first party Management

M.S. Bandonkar(Adv.)

For the second party workmen

Absent

Goa, dated the 12^th day of November, 2025.

AWARD

1. The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-

29011/21/2010(IR(M)) dated 21/07/2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference

as per the schedule to the said order are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. V.M. Salgaoncar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,/ their Contractor M/s.

Vishnuprashant S. Tar in refusing employment to S/Shri Kalkappa Vishappa Virshetty, Imran Issac Patel and Rajeasab

Daulsab Muzawar who were working as “ Dumper Operators” in the Shigao Mine of M/s. V.M. Salgaocar Bro. Pvt.

Ltd, w.e.f. 9/3/2010 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”

In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his case on

affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble

High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

7430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.

Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative

for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is

challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file

written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in

favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)

FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led

by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In

such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead

evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would

be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as

under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of

the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he

failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary

was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

As the workman has not filed any affidavit (examination-in-chief), so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of

workman in support of case set up by her, liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2127.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 24/2011) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/20/2010-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd; M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar and Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. L-29011/20/2010-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7431

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

MUMBA

(CAMP COURT GOA)

Present

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-24 of 2011

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,

Salgaocar House, Vaco-Da-Gama,

Goa-403802.

2. M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar

Vishnu Smruti Building, Opp. Mapusa Judicial Court,

Attinho Mapusa, Bardez- Goa.

And

The General Secretary,

Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union,

Velho‘s Building

2^nd Foor, Opp. Municipal Garden,

Panji, Goa-403001.

Appearances:

For the first party Management

M.S. Bandonkar(Adv.)

For the second party workmen

Absent

Goa, dated the 12^th day of November, 2025.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-29011/20/2010(IR(M))

dated 21/07/2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. V.M. Salgaoncar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,/ their Contractor M/s.

Vishnuprashant S. Tar in refusing employment to Shri Sharda Rama Kesarkar “Wheel Loader Operator” in

the Shigao Mine of M/s. V.M. Salgaocar Bro. Pvt. Ltd, w.e.f. 21/2/2010 is legal and justified?” in the shigao

Mine of M/s. V.M. Salgaocar Bro, Pvt. Ltd, w.e.f. 21/2/2010 is legal and justified?” To what relief the

workman is entitled for?”

In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his case on

affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble

High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the

order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman raises

a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement before

the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove

his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the

State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

7432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech

India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman

the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the

employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on

the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as

under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the respondent

to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the

impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the

case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

As the workman has not filed any affidavit (examination-in-chief), so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of

workman in support of case set up by her, liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2128.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 25/2011) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/19/2010-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2128.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd; M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar and Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. L-29011/19/2010-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

MUMBA

(CAMP COURT GOA)

Present

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-25 of 2011

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7433

1. The Managing Director,

M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,

Salgaocar House, Vaco-Da-Gama,

Goa-403802.

2. M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar

Vishnu Smruti Building, Opp. Mapusa Judicial Court,

Attinho Mapusa, Bardez- Goa.

And

The General Secretary,

Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union,

Velho‘s Building

2^nd Foor, Opp. Municipal Garden,

Panji, Goa-403001.

Appearances:

For the first party Management

M.S. Bandonkar(Adv.)

For the second party workmen

Absent

Goa, dated the 12^th day of November, 2025.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-29011/19/2010(IR(M))

dated 21/07/2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as

under:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. V.M. Salgaoncar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,/ their Contractor

M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar in refusing employment to Shri Venkatesh M. Rathod “Excavator Operator” in

the Shigao Mine of M/s. V.M. Salgaocar Bro. Pvt. Ltd, w.e.f 15.2.2010 is legal and justified? To what relief

the workman is entitled for?”

In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his case on

affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble

High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the

order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman

raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement

before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence

to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred

by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and

Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the

workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not

necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation

made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as

under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A

perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the

respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

7434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As the workman has not filed any affidavit (examination-in-chief), so it is a case of no evidence filed on behalf of

workman in support of case set up by her, liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

JusticE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2129.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 27/2011) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/18/2010-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 27/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd; M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar and Goa Mining Labour Welfare

Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. L-29011/18/2010-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

MUMBA

(CAMP COURT GOA)

Present

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-27 of 2011

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

The Managing Director,

M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,

Salgaocar House, Vaco-Da-Gama,

Goa-403802.

2. M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar

Vishnu Smruti Building, Opp. Mapusa Judicial Court,

Attinho Mapusa, Bardez- Goa.

And

The General Secretary,

Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7435

Velho‘s Building

2^nd Foor, Opp. Municipal Garden,

Panji, Goa-403001.

Appearances:

For the first party Management

M.S. Bandonkar(Adv.)

For the second party workmen

Absent

Goa, dated the 12^th day of November, 2025.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-29011/18/2010(IR(M))

dated 04/08/2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as

under:

“Whether the charter of demands dated 30/11/2009(Annexure-IA) served on the management of M/s. V.M.

Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd., By the Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union is legal and justified? If yes, to what

relief the Union is entitle for?”

In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any statement of claim /evidence in support of his

case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the

Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality

of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a

workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he

must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or

produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman

and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR

38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or

on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a

situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to

establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would

fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as

under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A

perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by

the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

As the workman has not filed any statement of claim, so it is a case of no statement of claim filed on behalf of

workman in support of case set up by her, liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 2 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 2130.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

7436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 13, 2025/AGRAHAYANA 22, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

न्यायालय-1, मुंबई, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 38/2011) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो

केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 02.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/27/2010-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2025

S.O. 2130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 38/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd; M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar and Goa Mining Labour Welfare

Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.12.2025.

[No. L-29011/27/2010-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,

MUMBA

(CAMP COURT GOA)

Present

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-38 of 2011

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

The Managing Director,

M/s. V.M. Salgaocar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,

Salgaocar House, Vaco-Da-Gama,

Goa-403802.

2. M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar

Vishnu Smruti Building, Opp. Mapusa Judicial Court,

Attinho Mapusa, Bardez- Goa.

And

The General Secretary,

Goa Mining Labour Welfare Union,

Velho‘s Building

2^nd Foor, Opp. Municipal Garden,

Panji, Goa-403001.

Appearances:

For the first party Management

M.S. Bandonkar(Adv.)

For the second party workmen

Absent

Goa, dated the 12^th day of November, 2025.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-29011/27/2010(IR(M)) dated

25/11/2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : ददसम् बर 13, 2025/अग्रहायण 22, 1947

7437

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. V.M. Salgaoncar & Bro. Pvt. Ltd,/ their Contractor

M/s. Vishnuprashant S. Tar in refusing employment to S/Shri Yaseen Azad Shirkole w.e.f. 1/12/2009 is legal

and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled for?”

In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any evidence in support of his case on affidavit, in

spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in

the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under: