8593 GI/2025
(7625)
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. 51]
नइ ददल् ली, ददसम् बर 28, 2025—जनवरी 3, 2026, िजनवार/पौष 7—पौष 13, 1947
No. 51]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 28, 2025—JANUARY 3, 2026, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 7– PAUSHA 13, 1947
आस भाग में जभन् न पृ् सं् या दी जाती हज जजससे दक यह पृथक संकलन के प 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—ईप-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)
गृह मंत्रालय
नइ ददल्ली, 4 ददसम्बर, 2025
का.अ. 2205.—केन्रीय सरकार, सरकारी स्ट्थान (ऄप्राजधकृत ऄजधभोजगयों की बेदखली) ऄजधजनयम, 1971
(1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए नीचे सारणी के स्ट्तम्भ (1) में वर्णणत ऄजधकारी को,
जो सरकार के राजपजत्रत ऄजधकारी की रैंक के समतुल्य ऄजधकारी हज, ईि ऄजधजनयम के प्रयोजन के जलए संपदा ऄजधकारी
जनयुि करती हज, जो ईि सारणी के स्ट्तम्भ (2) में तत्सस्ट्थानी प्रजवजियों में जवजनर्ददि सरकारी स्ट्थानों की बाबत ऄपने
ऄजधकाररता की स्ट्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर ईि ऄजधजनयम द्वारा या ईसके ऄधीन संपदा ऄजधकाररयों को प्रदत िजियों
का प्रयोग और ईन पर ऄजधरोजपत कततव्यों का पालन करेगें, ऄथात्:-
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-07012026-269129
CG-DL-W-07012026-269129
7626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
सारणी
ऄजधकारी का पदनाम सरकारी स्ट्थानों के प्रवगत और ऄजधकाररता की स्ट्थानीय सीमाएं
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. जद्वतीय कमान ऄजधकारी, लेखावाड़ा, गॉधीनगर, गुजरात जस्ट्थत
रािीय सुरक्षा गाडत रीजनल हब, राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा गाडत के पररसर
लेखावाड़ा,गॉंधीनगर, गुजरात
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[फा. सं. 27012/27/2023/पीएफ-V (E-3638976]
दीपक कुमार, जनदेिक (पुजलस जवत्त)
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 4th December, 2025
S.O. 2205.—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 the Officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer to the Government, to be
Estate Officer 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, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public
premises as specified in column (2) of the said Table, namely:-
TABLE
Designation of officer.
Categories of public premises and local limits of
jurisdiction.
(1)
(2)
Second-in-Command, National Security Guard, Regional Hub,
Lekhawada, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
National
Security
Guard
premises
at
Lekhawada, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
[F. No. 27012/27/2023/PF-V (E CF-3638976]
DEEPAK KUMAR, Director (Police Finance)
जवत्त मंत्रालय
(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)
नइ ददल्ली, 30 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2206.—भारतीय ररजवत बैंक ऄजधजनयम, 1934 की धारा 8 की ईपधारा (4) के साथ पर त धारा 8 की
ईपधारा (1) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा श्री जिररि चन्र मुमूत
(जन्म जतजथ: 5.4.1968), कायतपालक जनदेिक, भारतीय ररजवत बैंक को ददनांक 9.10.2025 को ऄथवा ईसके बाद
कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वषत की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय ररजवत
बैंक में ईप-गवनतर के पद पर जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 1/1/2023-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7627
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2025
S.O. 2206.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of The Reserve
Bank of India Act, 1934, read with sub-section (4) of Section 8 thereof, the Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Shirish Chandra Murmu (DoB: 05.04.1968), Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India, to the post of Deputy
Governor, Reserve Bank of India, for a period of three years from the date of joining the post on or after 09.10.2025
or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 1/1/2023-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 30 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2207.—बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की
ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्स त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री अिीष पाण्डेय
(जन्म जतजथ: 24.6.1971), कायतपालक जनदेिक, बैंक अफ महाराष्ट्र को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वषत की
ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूजनयन बैंक अफ आंजडया में प्रबंध जनदेिक और मु्य कायतकारी
ऄजधकारी के पद पर जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/3/(i)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2025
S.O. 2207.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri
Asheesh Pandey (DoB: 24.06.1971), Executive Director, Bank of Maharashtra, as Managing Director and Chief
Executive Officer, Union Bank of India, for a period of three years with effect from the date of his assumption of
charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/3/(i)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 30 जसतम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2208.—बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की ईपधारा
(3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्स त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री कल्याण कुमार
(जन्म जतजथ: 10.1.1969), कायतपालक जनदेिक, पंजाब नजिनल बैंक को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वषत की
ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, सेन्रल बैंक अफ आंजडया में प्रबंध जनदेिक और मु्य कायतकारी
ऄजधकारी के पद पर जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/3/(ii)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2025
S.O. 2208.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Central Government hereby appoints
Shri Kalyan Kumar (DoB: 10.01.1969), Executive Director, Punjab National Bank, as Managing Director and Chief
Executive Officer, Central Bank of India, for a period of three years with effect from the date of his assumption of
charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/3/(ii)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
7628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नइ ददल्ली, 24 नवम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2209.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणत ईपबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की ऄजधसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के पजरा 8 (1) के साथ पर त बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970
की धारा 9 की ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, पंजाब
नजिनल बैंक के मु्य महाप्रबंधक श्री ऄजमत कुमार श्रीवास्ट्तव (जन्म जतजथः 29.9.1970) को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की
तारीख से तीन वषत की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब नजिनल बैंक में कायतपालक
जनदेिक के पद पर जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/4/(i)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th November, 2025
S.O. 2209.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby appoints Shri Amit Kumar Srivastava (DoB: 29.09.1970), Chief General Manager,
Punjab National Bank as Executive Director in Punjab National Bank for a period of three years with effect from the
date of assumption of charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/4/(i)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 नवम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2210.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणत ईपबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11. 2022 की
ऄजधसूचना के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के पजरा 8 (1) के साथ पर त बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण)
ऄजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार,
एतद् द्वारा, सेन्रल बैंक अफ आंजडया के मु्य महाप्रबंधक श्री इ. रतन कुमार (जन्म जतजथः 12.1.1969) को कायतभार ग्रहण
करने की तारीख से तीन वषत की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, सेन्रल बैंक अफ आंजडया में
कायतपालक जनदेिक के पद पर जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/4/(ii)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th November, 2025
S.O. 2210.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby appoints Shri E. Ratan Kumar (DoB: 12.01.1969), Chief General Manager, Central Bank
of India as Executive Director in Central Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of
assumption of charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/4/(ii)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 नवम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2211.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणत ईपबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की ऄजधसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के पजरा 8 (1) के साथ पर त बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970
की धारा 9 की ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, पंजाब
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7629
नजिनल बैंक के मु्य महाप्रबंधक श्री ऄमरेि प्रसाद (जन्म जतजथः 2.10.1968) को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन
वषत की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ईनकी ऄजधवर्णषता की अयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख ऄथात 31.10.2028 तक ऄथवा ऄगले
अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, यूजनयन बैंक अफ आंजडया में कायतपालक जनदेिक के पद पर जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/4/(iii)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th November, 2025
S.O. 2211.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby appoints Shri Amresh Prasad (DoB: 02.10.1968), Chief General Manager, Punjab
National Bank as Executive Director in Union Bank of India for a period of three years with effect from the date of
assumption of charge of the office, or till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 31.10.2028 or until
further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF.No. 4/4/(iii)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 नवम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2212.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणत ईपबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की ऄजधसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के पजरा 8 (1) के साथ पर त बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970
की धारा 9 की ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, बैंक अफ
आंजडया के मु्य महाप्रबंधक श्री प्रमोद कुमार जद्ववेदी (जन्म जतजथः 22.6.1968) को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से
ईनकी ऄजधवर्णषता की अयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख ऄथात 30.6.2028 तक ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बैंक
अफ आंजडया में कायतपालक जनदेिक के पद पर जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/4/(iv)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th November, 2025
S.O. 2212.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby appoints Shri Pramod Kumar Dwibedi (DoB: 22.06.1968), Chief General Manager, Bank
of India as Executive Director in Bank of India with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the office till the
date of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 30.06.2028 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF.No. 4/4/(iv)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 नवम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2213.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणत ईपबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की ऄजधसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के पजरा 8 (1) के साथ पर त बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970
की धारा 9 की ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, पंजाब
नजिनल बैंक के मु्य महाप्रबंधक श्री सुनील कुमार चुघ (जन्म जतजथः 3.5.1969) को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से
तीन वषत की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केनरा बैंक में कायतपालक जनदेिक के पद पर
जनयुि करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/4/(v)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
7630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th November, 2025
S.O. 2213.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sunil Kumar Chugh (DoB: 03.05.1969), Chief General Manager, Punjab
National Bank as Executive Director in Canara Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of
assumption of charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/4/(v)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 नवम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2214.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणत ईपबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की ऄजधसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के पजरा 8 (1) के साथ पर त बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970
की धारा 9 की ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, बैंक अफ
बड़ौदा की मु्य महाप्रबंधक सुश्री जमनी टी एम (जन्म जतजथः 30.5.1970) को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन
वषत की ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, आंजडयन बैंक में कायतपालक जनदेिक के पद पर जनयुि
करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/4/(vi)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th November, 2025
S.O. 2214.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Mini T M (DoB: 30.05.1970), Chief General Manager, Bank of Baroda as
Executive Director in Indian Bank for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of charge of the
office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/4/(vi)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 नवम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2215.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणत ईपबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की ऄजधसूचना
के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के पजरा 8 (1) के साथ पर त बैंककारी कंपनी (ईपक्रमों का ऄजतन और ऄंतरण) ऄजधजनयम, 1970
की धारा 9 की ईपधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, केनरा बैंक
के मु्य महाप्रबंधक श्री प्रभात दकरण (जन्म जतजथः 15.10.1971) को कायतभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वषत की
ऄवजध के जलए ऄथवा ऄगले अदेिों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बैंक अफ महाराष्ट्र में कायतपालक जनदेिक के पद पर जनयुि
करती हज।
[इ फा. सं. 4/4/(vii)/2024-बीओ-I]
संजय कुमार जमश्र, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th November, 2025
S.O. 2215.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised
Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the
Central Government hereby appoints Shri Prabhat Kiran (DoB: 15.10.1971), Chief General Manager, Canara Bank as
Executive Director in Bank of Maharashtra for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of
charge of the office, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[eF. No. 4/4/(vii)/2024-BO-I]
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7631
राजस्ट्व जवभाग
(केन्रीय प्रत्सयक्ष कर बोडत)
नइ ददल्ली, 23 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2216.—केंर सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10
के ईप-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण मे, राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केंरीय प्रत्सयक्ष कर बोडत के ऄधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायातलयों, जजनके 80
प्रजतित से ऄजधक कमतचाररयों/ऄजधकाररयों ने हहदी का कायत साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को ईि जनयम के तहत
ऄजधसूजचत करती हज:
कायातलय प्रधान मु्य अयकर अयुि, पटना
क्रम सं्या.
कायातलय का नाम
1
कायातलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि, पटना
2
कायातलय ऄपर अयकर अयुि, पररक्षेत्र-1, पटना
3
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, ऄंचल-1, पटना
4
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(1), पटना
5
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(1), पटना
6
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(3), जबहारिरीफ
7
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(3), वजिाली
8
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(4), अरा
9
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(5), बक्सर
10
कायातलय ऄपर अयकर अयुि, पररक्षेत्र-4, पटना
11
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, ऄंचल-4, पटना
12
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-4(1), पटना
13
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-5(1), पटना
14
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-6(1), पटना
15
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(1), गया
16
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(4), सासाराम
17
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(3), औरंगाबाद
18
कायातलय ऄपर अयकर अयुि, पररक्षेत्र-1, मुजफ्फरपुर
19
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, ऄंचल-1, मुजफ्फरपुर
20
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(1), मुजफ्फरपुर
21
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(3), मोतीहारी
22
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(5), बेतीया
23
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(5), सीतामढी
24
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(1), दरभंगा
25
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(3), समस्ट्तीपुर
26
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(2), छपरा
7632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(3),जसवान
28
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(5),मधुबनी
29
कायातलय ऄपर अयकर अयुि, पररक्षेत्र-1, भागलपुर
30
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, ऄंचल-1,भागलपुर
31
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(1), भागलपुर
32
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(1), पुर्णणया
33
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(5), करटहार
34
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(4), सहरसा
35
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(1), बेगुसराय
36
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(4), मुंगेर
37
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(5), लखीसराय
38
कायातलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि, धनबाद
39
कायातलय संयुि अयकर अयुि, पररक्षेत्र-1, धनबाद
40
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, ऄंचल-1, धनबाद
41
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(1), धनबाद
42
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(1), धनबाद
43
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(1), देवघर
44
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(3), दुमका
45
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(4),जगरीडीह
46
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(5),साहेबगंज
47
कायातलय ऄपर अयकर अयुि, पररक्षेत्र-1, हजारीबाग
48
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, ऄंचल-1, हजारीबाग
49
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(1), हजारीबाग
50
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-1(5),कोडरमा
51
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(1), हजारीबाग
52
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-2(3), रामगढ
53
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी वाडत-3(1), बोकारो
54
कायातलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि, रांची
55
कायातलय ऄपर/संयुि अयकर अयुि पररक्षेत्र-1, रांची
56
कायातलय ऄपर/संयुि अयकर अयुि पररक्षेत्र-1, जमिेदपुर
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7633
57
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, डाल्टेनगंज
58
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, चाइबासा
59
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (डी.अर.) अइ.टी.ए.टी., पटना
60
कायातलय ऄपर/संयुि अयकर अयुि (डी.अर.) अइ.टी.ए.टी., रांची
61
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄंकेक्षण), पटना
62
कायातलय ऄपर अयकर अयुि (ऄंकेक्षण), पटना
63
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइ.ए.पी., यूजनट-1, पटना
64
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइ.ए.पी., यूजनट, धनबाद
65
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइ.ए.पी., यूजनट, जमिेदपर
66
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइ.ए.पी., यूजनट, मुजफ्फरपुर
67
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइ.ए.पी., यूजनट, हजारीबाग
68
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइ.ए.पी., यूजनट, भागलपुर
69
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी, अइ.ए.पी., यूजनट, रांची
70
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄपील) यूजनट-1, पटना
71
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄपील) यूजनट-2, पटना
72
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄपील) यूजनट-1, भागलपुर
73
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄपील) यूजनट-1, रांची
74
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄपील) यूजनट-1,जमिेदपुर
75
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄपील) यूजनट-1, धनबाद
76
कायातलय अयकर अयुि (ऄपील) यूजनट-1, हजारीबाग
77
कायातलय अयकर महाजनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), पटना
78
कायातलय प्रधान अयकर अयुि, (केंरीय), पटना
79
कायातलय संयुि अयकर अयुि, केंरीय पररक्षेत्र-1, पटना
80
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, केंरीय ऄंचल-1, पटना
81
कायातलय ईप अयकर अयुि, केंरीय ऄंचल-2, पटना
82
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, केंरीय ऄंचल-3, पटना
83
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, केंरीय ऄंचल, मुजफ्फरपुर
84
कायातलय संयुि अयकर अयुि, केंरीय पररक्षेत्र-2, रांची
85
कायातलय अयकर ईपायुि, केंरीय ऄंचल-1, पटना
7634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
86
कायातलय अयकर ईपायुि, केंरीय ऄंचल-2, पटना
87
कायातलय अयकर ईपायुि, केंरीय ऄंचल, जमिेदपुर
88
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, केंरीय ऄंचल, धनबाद
89
कायातलय कर वसूली ऄजधकारी, केंरीय, पटना
90
कायातलय प्रधान अयकर जनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), पटना
91
कायातलय संयुि अयकर जनदेिक(ऄन्वे.), पटना
92
कायातलय संयुि अयकर जनदेिक(बी.पी.यू.), पटना
93
कायातलय संयुि अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), रांची
94
कायातलय संयुि अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.)-एफएअइयू, पटना
95
कायातलय सहायक अयकर अयुि, (बी.पी.यू.), पटना
96
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (एफएअइयू), पटना
97
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.)-I, पटना
98
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.)-II, पटना
99
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), मुजफ्फरपुर
100
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), भागलपुर
101
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.), धनबाद
102
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.)-I, रांची
103
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.)-II, रांची
104
कायातलय सहायक अयकर जनदेिक (ऄन्वे.),जमिेदपुर
105
कायातलय अयकर ऄजधकारी (बी.पी.यू.), पटना
[फा. सं. इ-30018/1/2024- डीडी (ओएल) डीओअर]
प्रीजत सेलारे, ईप जनदेिक (राजभाषा)
(Department of Revenue)
(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2025
S.O. 2216.—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 offices under Central Board of Direct
Taxes, Department of Revenue, where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA
S. No.
Name of Office
1
O/o The Principal commissioner of Income Tax, Patna
2
O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Patna
3
O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna
4
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Patna
5
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(1), Patna
6
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(3), Biharsharif
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7635
7
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(3), Vaishali
8
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(4), Arah
9
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(5), Buxar
10
O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Patna
11
O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Patna
12
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-4(1), Patna
13
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-5(1), Patna
14
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-6(1), Patna
15
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(1), Gaya
16
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(4), Sasaram
17
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(3), Aurangabad
18
O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Muzzaffarpur
19
O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Muzzaffarpur
20
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Muzzaffarpur
21
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(3), Motihari
22
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(5), Bettiah
23
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(5), Sitamarhi
24
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(1), Darbhanga
25
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(3), Samastipur
26
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(2), Chapra
27
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(3), Siwan
28
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(5), Madhubani
29
O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Bhagalpur
30
O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhagalpur
31
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Bhagalpur
32
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(1), Purnea
33
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(5), Katihar
34
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(4), Saharsa
35
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(1), Begusarai
36
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(4), Munger
37
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(5), Lakhisarai
38
O/o The Principal commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad
39
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Dhanbad
40
O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dhanbad
41
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Dhanbad
42
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(1), Dhanbad
43
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(1), Deoghar
7636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
44
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(3), Dumka
45
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(4), Giridih
46
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(5), sahibhanj
47
O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Hazaribagh
48
O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Hazaribagh
49
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(1), Hazaribagh
50
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-1(5), Koderma
51
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(1), Hazaribagh
52
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-2(3), Ramgarh
53
O/o The Income Tax Officer, ward-3(1), Bokaro
54
O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi
55
O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Ranchi
56
O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Jamshedpur
57
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Daltongange
58
O/o The Income Tax Officer, Chaibasa
59
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax (D.R.) I.T.A.T., Patna
60
O/o The Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (D.R.) I.T.A.T., Ranchi
61
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Audit), Patna
62
O/o The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (Audit), Patna
63
O/o The Income Tax Officer, IAP, Unit-1, Patna
64
O/o The Income Tax Officer, IAP, Unit, Dhanbad
65
O/o The Income Tax Officer, IAP, Unit, Jamshedpur
66
O/o The Income Tax Officer, IAP, Unit, Muzzaffarpur
67
O/o The Income Tax Officer, IAP, Unit, Hazaribagh
68
O/o The Income Tax Officer, IAP, Unit, Bhagalpur
69
O/o The Income Tax Officer, IAP, Unit, Ranchi
70
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) Unit-1, Patna
71
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) Unit-2, Patna
72
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) Unit-1, Bhagalpur
73
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) Unit-1, Ranchi
74
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) Unit-1, Jamshedpur
75
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) Unit-1, Dhanbad
76
O/o The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal) Unit-1, Hazaribagh
77
O/o The Director General of Income Tax(Inv.), Patna
78
O/o The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Patna
79
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Patna
80
O/o The Assitt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Patna
81
O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7637
82
O/o The Assitt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Patna
83
O/o The Assitt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur
84
O/o The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, Ranchi
85
O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Patna
86
O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna
87
O/o The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur
88
O/o The Assitt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dhanbad
89
O/o The Tax Recovery Officer, Central, Patna
90
O/o The Principal Director of Income Tax(Inv.), Patna
91
O/o The Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Patna
92
O/o The Joint Director of Income Tax (BPU), Patna
93
O/o The Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Ranchi
94
O/o The Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv.)- FAIU, Patna
95
O/o The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , BPU, Patna
96
O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (FAIU), Patna
97
O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-I, Patna
98
O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II, Patna
99
O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Muzaffarpur
100 O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Bhagalpur
101 O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Dhanbad
102 O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-I, Ranchi
103 O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-II, Ranchi
104 O/o The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Jamshedpur
105 O/o The Income Tax Officer (BPU), Patna
[F. No. E-30018/1/2024 DD(OL) DOR]
ERPPLES PEEERP, Dy. Director(OL)
(व् यय जवभाग)
नइ ददल्ली, 22 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2217.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयमावली,
1976 के जनयम 10 के ईप-जनयमों (2) एवं (4) के ऄनुसरण में, भारतीय लेखापरीक्षा एवं लेखा जवभाग के कायातलय
महालेखाकार (लेखा एवं हकदारी), कनातटक, बेंगलूरु जजसमें ऄस्ट् सी प्रजतित से ऄजधक ऄजधकाररयों/कमतचाररयों ने हहदी का
कायतसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को ऄजधसूजचत करती हज।
[फा. सं. ए-12034/05/2025-इजी]
रामेश् वर कुमार, ऄवर सजचव
(Department of Expenditure)
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2025
S.O. 2217.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rules (2) and (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages
(Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the
Accountant General (A and E), Karnataka, Bengaluru under the Indian Audit and Accounts Department wherein
eighty per cent. of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. A-12034/05/2025-EG]
RAMESHWAR KUMAR, Under Secy.
7638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
जवदेि मन्त्रालय
(सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग)
नइ ददल्ली, 22 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2218.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय ऄजधकारी (िपथ एवं फीस) के ऄजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के
खंड (क) के ऄनुसरण में वजधाजनक अदेि।
एतद् द्वारा, केंर सरकार, ददसंबर 22, 2025 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवतहन करने के जलए जवदेि में भारतीय
जमिनों/पोस्ट्टों में सहायक कांसुलर ऄजधकाररयों के प प में आस मंत्रालय के जनम्नजलजखत ऄजधकाररयों की जनयुजि करता हज:
क्रम सं. ऄजधकारी का नाम और पद
जमिन
/
पोस्ट्ट जजसमें
सहायक कांसुलर ऄजधकारी के
प प में जनयुि दकया गया हज
1
श्री ऄनुज कुमार वमात, जनजी सहायक
भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास, बाली
2
श्री पंकज कुमार,सहायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी
भारतीय दूतावास, बनत
3
श्री नरेि कुमार, सहायक ऄनुभाग ऄजधकारी
भारतीय दूतावास, डमस्ट्कस
[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2025(40)]
तरुण कुमार, ऄवर सजचव [सीपीवी-II]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2025
S.O. 2218.—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 22, 2025:
S.
No
Name & Rank of the Officer
Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant
Consular Officer
1
Mr. Anuj Kumar Verma, Personal Assistant
Consulate General of India, Bali
2
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Berne
3
Mr. Naresh Kumar, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Damascus
[F. No. T. 4330/01/2025 (40)]
TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy. (CPV-II)
कार्णमक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय
(कार्णमक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नइ ददल्ली, 9 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2219.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की
ईपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री भासुरन एस, श्री जजजबन जोसेफ के.ए, सुश्री सुजा एन,
सुश्री दीजप्त. बी और श्री रेवी कुमार अर. ऄजधविाओं को, नीचे दी गइ सारणी में यथा ईजल्लजखत न्यायालयों में ददल्ली
जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन (केंरीय ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत केंरीय ऄन्वेषण मामलों के ऄजभयोजन का और आन मामलों से
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7639
ईद्भूत, ऄपील, पुनरीक्षण या ऄन्य मामलों का तत्ससमय प्रवृत्त जवजध द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी न्यायालय में संचालन करने हेतु
प्रभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से तीन वषत की ऄवजध के जलए या ऄगले अदेि तक, आनमें से जो भी पूवतर हो, जविेष लोक
ऄजभयोजक के प प में जनयुि करती हज, ऄथात् :-
क्र. सं.
न्यायालय का नाम
1.
जविेष न्यायाधीि, (एसपीइ/सीबीअइ)-I, एनातकुलम, केरल
2
जविेष न्यायाधीि, (एसपीइ/सीबीअइ)-II, एनातकुलम, केरल
3.
जविेष न्यायाधीि, (एसपीइ/सीबीअइ)-III, एनातकुलम, केरल
4.
मु्य न्याजयक मजजस्ट्रेट न्यायालय, एनातकुलम
5.
ऄपर मु्य न्याजयक मजजस्ट्रेट न्यायालय (अर्णथक ऄपराध), एनातकुलम, केरल
6.
जजला और सेिन न्यायाधीि, कवरथी, लक्षद्वीप संघ राज्यक्षेत्र
7.
जजला और सेिन न्यायालय, कलपेट्टा, वायनाड, केरल
8.
ऄपर सत्र न्यायालय-III (बीयुडीएस ऄजधजनयम, 2019 का जविेष न्यायालय), पलक्कड़
9.
मु्य न्याजयक मजजस्ट्रेट, ऄजमनी, केन्र िाजसत प्रदेि लक्षद्वीप
10.
ऄपर सेिन न्यायालय-III (बीयुडीएस ऄजधजनयम, 2019 के जलए जविेष न्यायालय) मंजेरी, मलप्पुरम
11.
ऄजतररि सेिन न्यायालय-III (बीयुडीएस ऄजधजनयम, 2019 के जलए जविेष न्यायालय) जत्रिूर
12.
ऄजतररि सेिन न्यायालय (बीयुडीएस ऄजधजनयम, 2019 के जलए जविेष न्यायालय) ऄलप्पुझा
13.
ऄजतररि सेिन न्यायाधीि-V (बीयुडीएस ऄजधजनयम, 2019 के जलए जविेष न्यायालय) कोझीकोड
[फा. सं. 225/24/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2025
S.O. 2219.—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 Bhasuran. S, Sh. Jibin
Joseph K. A, Ms. Suja N, Ms. Deepthy. B and Sh. Revi Kumar R, Advocates, as Special Public Prosecutors for
conducting prosecution of the cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of
Investigation) in the courts as mentioned in the table below, and appeals, revisions or other matters arising out of such
cases before any court established by law for the time being in force, for a period of three years from the date of
assumption of charge or till further orders, whichever is earlier, namely:–
Sl. No.
Name of courts
1.
Special Judge, (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, Kerala
2.
Special Judge, (SPE/CBI)-II, Ernakulam, Kerala
3.
Special Judge, (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam, Kerala
4.
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam
5.
Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offence), Ernakulam, Kerala
6.
District and Sessions Judge, Kavarathi, UT of Lakshadweep
7.
District and Sessions Court, Kalpetta, Wayanadu, Kerala
7640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8
Addl. Sessions Court-III (Special Court of BUDS Act, 2019), Palakkad
9
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini, UT of Lakshadweep
10
Addl. Sessions Court-III (Spl. Court for BUDS Act, 2019) Manjeri, Malappuram
11
Addl. Sessions Court-III (Spl. Court for BUDS Act, 2019) Thrissur
12
Addl. Sessions Court (Spl. Court for BUDS Act, 2019) Alappuzha
13
Addl. Session Judge-V (Spl. Court for BUDS Act, 2019) Kozhikode
[F. No. 225/24/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 9 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2220.—केंरीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय
ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए अदेि सं्या
एचडी 94 सीओडी 2023, बेंगलुरु, ददनांक 12.02.2024 एवं ऄनुिेष अदेि सं्या:एचडी 94 सीओडी 2023, बेंगलुरु,
ददनांक 17.10.2025 के माध्यम से जारी कनातटक राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से पॉपुलर फ़ाआनेंस ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनी के
जनदेिकों, साझेदारों और माजलकों तथा बेंगलुरु के जवजभन्न पुजलस स्ट्टेिनों में मेससत पॉपुलर फ़ाआनेंस ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनीज के
जवरुद्ध माननीय प्रधान नगर जसजवल एवं सत्र न्यायाधीि, बेंगलुरु जसटी के ददनांक 03.09.2025 के अदेि द्वारा ऄद्यतन
दकए गए जवजध एवं ऄजधजनयमों की संगत धाराओं सजहत दजत 66 एफअइअर के संदभत में कजथत धोखाधड़ी में संजलप्त
व्यजियों द्वारा दकए गए करोड़ों रुपये की धोखाधड़ी का ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन के सदस्ट्यों की
िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार करती हज। ददनांक 03.09.2025 के अदेि द्वारा ऄद्यतन दकए गए जवजध एवं
ऄजधजनयमों की संगत धाराओं सजहत दजत 66 एफअइअर की सूची जो ऄनुबंध-क के प प में संलग्न हज। ईि 66 एफअइअर
में से 65 एफअइअर को माननीय प्रधान नगर जसजवल एवं सत्र न्यायाधीि, बेंगलुरु जसटी के ददनांक 09.11.2023 के
अदेि द्वारा बेंगलुरु के यिवंतपुर पुजलस स्ट्टेिन में दजत ऄपराध सं्या 168/2020 के साथ जोड़ ददया गया था ।
[फा. सं. 228/95/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
ऄनुबंध-क
बेंगलुरु जसटी में मजससत पॉपुलर फाआनेंस एंड ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनीज़ के जवप द्ध दजत मामलों की सूची।
क्र.सं.
पुजलस स्ट्टेिन का
नाम (बेंगलुरु
जसटी)
एफअइअर सं्या और कानून की
धारा (ऄन्वेषण के दौरान जोड़ी गइ
कानून की धारा सजहत)।
कानून की धारा (माननीय प्रधान नगर
जसजवल एवं सत्र न्यायाधीि, बेंगलुरु जसटी
की ऄनुमजत के ऄनुसार, ददनांक
03.09.2025 के अदेि के माध्यम से
ऄद्यतन)
01
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
168/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 34, 406, 420 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सपर त 34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम,
2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7641
25 के तहत।
02
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
209/2020, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 21,
22, 23 के तहत, भारतीय दंड संजहता
की धारा 406, 34, 420 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सपर त34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम,
2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23,
25 के तहत।
03
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
339/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
471, 468 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 471, 468 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
04
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
340/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 471, 468 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
05
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
342/2021, कनातटक अवश्यक वस्ट्तु
लाआसेंहसग अदेि, 1986 की धारा 9,
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध
ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत
ऄपराध सं्या: 342/2021,भारतीय दंड
संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
421, 465, 468, 471 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत
जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा
21, 23, 25 के तहत।
06
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
343/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468
के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
7642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
07
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
344/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
08
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
345/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
09
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
346/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
10
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
347/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
406, 409, 419, 420, 461, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 461, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
11
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
348/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7643
12
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
349/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
13
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
350/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
468, 471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
14
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
351/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
15
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
352/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
468, 471 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 3, 4 तथा कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
16
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
353/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
468, 471 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 3, 4 तथा कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
7644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
के तहत।
17
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
354/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं
पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा
3, 4 तथा भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा
120बी, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420,
465, 468, 471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
18
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
355/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
471, 468 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 3, 4 तथा कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 471, 468 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
19
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
356/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 3,
4, भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा
120बी, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420,
465, 468, 471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
20
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
360/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 421, 465, 468, 471
और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
21
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
361/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7645
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 के
तहत।
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
22
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
362/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 के
तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
23
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
363/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
24
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
364/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
25
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
366/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
471, 468 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 3, 4 तथा कनातटक जमाकतातओं
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004
की धारा 9 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 471, 468 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
26
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
367/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
7646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
27
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
368/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
471, 468 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 3, 4 तथा कनातटक जमाकतातओं
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004
की धारा 9 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 471, 468 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
28
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
369/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
406, 409, 419, 420, 461, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 461, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
29
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
370/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
471, 468 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019
की धारा 3, 4 तथा कनातटक
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 471, 468 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
30
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
371/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
31
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
373/2021, भारतीय दण्ड संजहता
कीधारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
468, 471 और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजना
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-2019 की धारा 3, 4
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7647
और कनातटक जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम 2004 की धारा 9 के
तहत।
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
32
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
374/2021,भारतीय दंड संजहताकीधारा
120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468,
471 और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजना
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-2019 की धारा 3, 4
और कनातटक जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम 2004 की धारा 9 के
तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
33
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
375/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
468, 471 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-
2019 की धारा 3, 4 और कनातटक
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम 2004 की धारा 9 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
34
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
376/2021, कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों
में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम 2004 की धारा 9,
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध
ऄजधजनयम 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दण्ड संजहता कीधारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
35
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
377/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
36
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
378/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
7648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
37
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
380/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
38
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
381/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
468, 471 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-
2019 की धारा 3, 4 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
39
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
382/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 120बी, 406, 409, 419, 420,
468, 471 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-
2019 की धारा 3, 4 तथा कनातटक
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा
ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019
की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
40
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
383/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7649
41
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
384/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
42
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
385/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
43
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
387/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत।
44
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
388/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 के तहत
और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 के ऄंतगत और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23,
25 के तहत
45
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
389/2021, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
7650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
46
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
04/2022, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
के ऄंतगत तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
47
यिवंतपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
05/2022, कनातटक जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9, ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄध्यादेि, 2019 की धारा 3, 4,
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी,
406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 के
तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120बी, 406,
409, 419, 420, 468, 471 के तहत और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
के ऄंतगत और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
48
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
156/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 23,
26 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
49
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
157/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 23,
26 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध
ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के
तहत
50
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
158/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 23,
26 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध
ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के
तहत
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7651
51
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
169/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 21,
22, 23, 26 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध
ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के
तहत।
52
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
170/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-2019 की धारा 21,
22, 23, 26 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
53
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
184/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, 34 और कनातटक
जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं
पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-2019 की धारा
21, 22, 23, 26 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सपर त धारा 34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत
जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा
21, 23, 25 के तहत
54
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
202/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-2019 की धारा 21,
22, 23, 26 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध
ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के
तहत
55
एच.एस.अर.
लेअईट पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
203/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का
संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
और ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-2019 की धारा 21,
22, 23, 26 के तहत।
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध
ऄजधजनयम, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के
तहत
7652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
56
मजडवाला पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
226/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, 34 और कनातटक
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सपर त धारा 34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत
जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा
21, 23, 25 के तहत
57
मगदी रोड पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
157/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 420 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 21 तथा केपीअइडी ऄजधजनयम
की धारा 09 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 420 और
कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के
जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9
तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध,
2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
58
चंरा लेअईट
पुजलस स्ट्टेिन
244/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, 34, ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-
2019 की धारा 21 और केपीअइडी
ऄजधजनयम-2004 की धारा 09 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सहपर त 34 तथा कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम,
2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23,
25 के तहत
59
जीवनबीम नगर
पुजलस स्ट्टेिन
187/2020 भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, 34 और केपीअइडी
ऄजधजनयम 2004 की धारा 9 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सहपर त 34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों
में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत
जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा
21, 23, 25 के तहत
60
बानसवाड़ी पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
552/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 409, 420, ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-
2019 की धारा 21, 22, 23 और
केपीअइडी ऄजधजनयम-2004 की धारा
9 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 409, 420
और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
61
बानसवाड़ी पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
553/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 409, 420, जमा योजनाओं
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 409, 420
और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7653
पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम-2019 की धारा
21, 22, 23 और केपीअइडी
ऄजधजनयम-2004 की धारा 9 के तहत
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
62
बानसवाड़ी पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
358/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, 34 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सहपर त 34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों
में जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत
जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा
21, 23, 25 के तहत
63
जवद्यारण्यपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
157/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 409, 420 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 409, 420
और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
64
महादेवपुरा पुजलस
स्ट्टेिन
253/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 406, 420, 34 और कनातटक
जमाकतातओं के जहत संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 406, 420
सहपर त धारा 34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय
प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं के जहत संरक्षण
ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत
जमा योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा
21, 23, 25 के तहत
65
येलहंका न्यू टाईन
पुजलस स्ट्टेिन
120/2020, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 420, 34 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 21, 22, 23 और केपीअइडी
ऄजधजनयम की धारा 9 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 420 सपर त
धारा 34 और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में
जमाकतातओं के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम,
2004 की धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23,
25 के तहत
66
संपांगीरामा नगर
पुजलस स्ट्टेिन
15/2021, भारतीय दंड संजहता की
धारा 420, 34 और ऄजनयजमत जमा
योजनाओं पर प्रजतबंध ऄजधजनयम की
धारा 3, 4 तथा केपीअइडी ऄजधजनयम
की धारा 9 के तहत
भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 420 सपर त 34
और कनातटक जवत्तीय प्रजतष्ठानों में जमाकतातओं
के जहतों का संरक्षण ऄजधजनयम, 2004 की
धारा 9 तथा ऄजनयजमत जमा योजनाओं पर
प्रजतबंध, 2019 की धारा 21, 23, 25 के तहत
7654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 9th December, 2025
S.O. 2220.—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 Karnataka, issued vide order No. HD 94 COD 2023, Bengaluru dated 12.02.2024 and
Addendum Order No:HD 94 COD 2023, Bengaluru dated 17.10.2025, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of
the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigation of multi-crores fraud committed by Directors,
Partners and Owners of Popular Finance Group of Companies and the persons involved in connection with alleged
fraud in respect of 66 FIRs registered against M/s. Popular Finance Group Companies at various police stations at
Bengaluru alongwith corresponding sections of law and Acts as updated vide order dated 03.09.2025 of the Hon‘ble
Principal City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru City. The list of 66 FIRs along with corresponding sections of law
and acts as updated vide order dated 03.09.2025 is attached as Annexure-A. Out of 66 FIRs, 65 of the said FIRs were
clubbed with Crime No. 168/2020 registered at Yeshwanthapura Police Station Bengaluru vide order dated 09.11.2023
of the Hon‘ble Principal City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru City.
[F. No. 228/95/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
Annexure-A
List of cases registered against M/s. Popular finance and group of companies in Bengaluru City.
SI/
No.
Name
of
the
police
Station
(Bengaluru City) `
FIR number and Section of law
(including Section of law added
during investigation).
Section of Law (Updated as per the
permission
of
Hon’ble
Court
of
Prl.C.C. & S.J. Bengaluru City, vide
order dated 03.09.2025)
01
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
168/2020, U/S 34, 406, 420 IPC.
u/s 406, 420 R/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
02
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
209/2020,
U/S
9
of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, u/s 21, 22, 23
The Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance, 2019, U/s 406,
34, 420 IPC
u/s 406, 420 R/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
03
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
339/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 471, 468 IPC.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 471, 468
IPC & U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
04
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
340/2021
U/s
9
of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, u/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
471, 468 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
05
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
342/2021
U/S
9
Of
Karnataka
Essential
Commodities
Licensing
order 1986, U/s 3, 4 of The Banning
of Unregulated Deposit Schemes act
2019, U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419,
420, 465, 468, 471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 421, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7655
06
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
343/2021
U/S
9
Of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, u/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468
IPC,
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection
of Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
07
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
344/2021
U/S
9
Of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, u/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
08
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
345/2021 U/S. 9 Of Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, u/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
09
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
346/2021 U/S 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
10
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
347/2021 U/S 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
406, 409, 419, 420, 461, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 461, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
11
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
348/2021 U/S 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468,
471 IPC &u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection
of Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
12
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
349/2021 U/S 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, u/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
13
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
350/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
14
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
351/2021
U/s
9
of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 &
7656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Schemes ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC,
U/s 21, 23, 25 of The Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes, 2019.
15
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
352/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act & U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection
of Interest Depositors Exorbitant Act
2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
16
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
353/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act & U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection
of Interest Depositors Exorbitant Act
2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
17
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
354/2021
U/s
9
of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004 & U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes act 2019 & U/s 120B, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471
IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
18
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
355/2021 U/S 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 471, 468 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act & U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection
of Interest Depositors Exorbitant Act
2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 471, 468
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
19
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
356/2021
U/S
9
of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes act 2019, U/s 120B, 421,
406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471
IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
20
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
360/2021
U/S
9
of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 421,
465, 468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
21
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
361/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
22
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
362/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
23
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
363/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act, 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7657
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
24
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
364/2021 U/S 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
25
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
366/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 471, 468 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act & U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection
of Interest of Depositors Exorbitant
Act 2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 471, 468
IPC & U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
26
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
367/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
27
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
368/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 471, 468 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act & U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection
of Interest of Depositors Exorbitant
Act 2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 471, 468
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21 , 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
28
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
369/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
406, 409, 419, 420, 461, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 461, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
29
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
370/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 471, 468 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act-2019 & U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 471, 468
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
30
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
371/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
31
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
373/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act-2019 & U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
32
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
374/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act-2019 & U/s 9 of Karnataka
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
7658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004.
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
33
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
375/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act-2019 & U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
34
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
376/2021
U/s
9
of
Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Financial Establishment Act 2004,
U/s 3, 4 The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes act 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
35
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
377/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
36
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
378/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
37
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
380/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
38
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
381/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act- 2019 & U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
39
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
382/2021 U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419,
420, 468, 471 IPC & U/s 3, 4 Buds
Act- 2019 & U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
40
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
383/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7659
41
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
384/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
42
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
385/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
43
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
387/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
44
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
388/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
45
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
389/2021 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
46
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
04/2022 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465, 468,
471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 421, 406, 409, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
47
Yeshwanthapura
Police Station
05/2022 U/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors
Exorbitant Act 2004, U/s 3, 4 The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes Ordinance 2019, U/s 120B,
406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC.
U/s 120B, 406, 409, 419, 420, 468, 471
IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors in Financial
Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23,
25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
48
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
156/2020 U/s 406, 420 IPC and U/s 9
of Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors Exorbitant Act 2004 &
U/s 23, 26 of Buds act-2019
U/s 406, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
49
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
157/2020 U/s 406, 420 IPC and U/s 9
of Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors Exorbitant Act 2004 &
U/s 23, 26 of Buds act-2019
U/s 406, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
7660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
50
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
158/2020 U/s 406, 420 IPC and U/s 9
of Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors Exorbitant Act 2004 &
U/s 23, 26 of Buds act-2019
U/s 406, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
51
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
169/2020 U/s 406, 420 IPC and U/s 9
of Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors Exorbitant Act 2004 &
U/s 21, 22, 23, 26 of Buds act-2019
U/s 406, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
52
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
170/2020 U/s 406, 420 IPC and U/s 9
of Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors Exorbitant Act 2004 &
U/s 21, 22, 23, 26 of Buds act-2019
U/s 406, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
53
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
184/2020 U/s 406, 420, 34 IPC and
U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors Exorbitant Act
2004 & U/s 21, 22, 23, 26 of Buds
act-2019
U/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
54
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
202/2020 U/s 406, 420 IPC and U/s 9
of Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors Exorbitant Act 2004 &
U/s 21, 22, 23, 26 of Buds act-2019
U/s 406, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
55
H.S.R. Layout
Police Station
203/2020 U/s 406, 420 IPC and U/s 9
of Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors Exorbitant Act 2004 &
U/s 21, 22, 23, 26 of Buds act-2019
U/s 406, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
56
Madivala Police
Station
226/2020 U/s 406, 420, 34 IPC and
U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest of Depositors Exorbitant Act
2004
U/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
57
Magadi Road
Police Station
157/2020 U/s 420 IPC and u/s 21 of
BUDS act and U/s 09 of KPID act.
U/s 420 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
58
Chandra Layout
Police Station
244/2020 U/s 406, 420, 34 IPC & U/s
21 Buds act-2019 and U/s 09 of
KPID Act-2004.
U/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
59
Jeevanbeema
Nagar Police
Station
187/2020 U/s 406, 420, 34 IPC & U/s
9 KPID act 2004.
U/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
60
Banasavadi Police
Station
552/2020 U/s 406, 409, 420 IPC &
U/s 21, 22, 23 Buds act-2019 and U/s
9 KPID Act-2004.
U/s 406, 409, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7661
61
Banasavadi Police
Station
553/2020 U/s 406, 409, 420 IPC &
U/s 21, 22, 23 Buds act-2019 and U/s
9 KPID Act-2004.
U/s 406, 409, 420 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
62
Banasavadi Police
Station
358/2020 U/s 406, 420, 34 IPC
U/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
63
Vidyaranyapura
Police Station
157/2020 U/s 406, 409, 420 IPC
U/s 406, 409, 420 IPC u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
64
Mahadevapura
Police Station
253/2020 U/s 406, 420, 34 IPC and
U/s 9 of Karnataka Protection of
Interest Depositors Exorbitant Act
2004.
U/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of
Karnataka Protection of Interest of
Depositors in Financial Establishments
Act, 2004 & U/s 21, 23, 25 of The
Banning of Unregulated Deposit
Schemes, 2019.
65
Yelahanka New
Town Police
Station
120/2020 u/s 420, 34 IPC & U/s 21,
22, 23 BUDS act and 9 of KPID act.
U/s 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
66
Sampangirama
Nagar Police
Station
15/2021 u/s 420, 34 IPC & U/s 3, 4
BUDS act & 9 of KPID act.
U/s 420 r/w 34 IPC & u/s 9 of Karnataka
Protection of Interest of Depositors in
Financial Establishments Act, 2004 & U/s
21, 23, 25 of The Banning of Unregulated
Deposit Schemes, 2019.
नइ ददल्ली, 12 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2221.—केन् रीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा ददल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय
ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए अदेि सं. एचडी
104 सीओडी 2025, बेंगलुप , ददनांक 07.11.2025 के माध्यम से जारी कनातटक राज्य की सम्मजत से गूगल प्ले स्ट्टोर में
“गलद ऄरब’’ एप्लीकेिन के माजलकों, जनमातणकतातओं एवं प्रचालकों तथा ऄन्य ऄज्ञात व्यजियों के जवप द्ध भारतीय न्याय
संजहता, 2023 की धारा 61(2), 111 एवं 204 और सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी ऄजधजनयम, 2000 की धारा 66डी के तहत
ऄपराध(धों) तथा ऄन्वेषण के दौरान सामने अने वाले ऄन्य ऄपराध का पंजीकरण एवं ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली
जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/97/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 12th December, 2025
S.O. 2221.—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 Karnataka, issued vide Order No. HD 104 COD 2025, Bengaluru, dated 07.11.2025, hereby
7662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for registration and
investigation of offence against the owners, developers and operators of ―GALAD ARAB‖ application in Google Play
Store and other unknown persons for offence(s) under section 61(2), 111 and 204 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and any other offence that may come to light during
investigation.
[F. No. 228/97/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 17 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2222.—केंरीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा ददल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय
ऄजधजनयम XXV) की धारा 5 की ईप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पुजलस ईप
महाजनरीक्षक/िाखा प्रमुख, सीबीअइ, एसीबी, रांची के ददनांक 19.11.2025 के पत्र सं्या 979/सीओ-13/2025-अर
द्वारा दकए गए ऄनुरोध पर झारखंड राज् य सरकार की ऄजधसूचना ज्ञापन सं.-10/सी.बी.अइ.-430/2025-7229/ रांची,
ददनांक 28.11.2025, गृह, कारागार और अपदा प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से जनम्न संददग्ध व्यजियों :-
1. श्री संदीप रंजन, 21सी(जीडी), रेजीमेंटल सं. 111110658, एसएचक्यू (पटना), अइटीबीपी।
2. श्री अिुतोष कुनाल गुप्ता, सुपुत्र श्री हबदेश्वरी, पुजलस अरक्षक (जीडी), रेजीमेंटल सं. 090180277, 40 बीएन ,
अइटीबीपी, जनवासी ग्राम – सरसादाये, पोस्ट्ट - बेलहर, जजला – बांका (जबहार)
3. श्री मनोज कुमार, सुपुत्र श्री ऄजय प्रसाद माथुरी, पुजलस अरक्षक (जीडी) रेजीमेंटल सं. 130460704, एस एचक्यू
(पटना), अइटीबीपी, जनवासी ग्राम – ऄजमतगंज परइया, पोस्ट्ट - परइया , तेह-जतकरी, जजला – गया (जबहार)
4. ऄज्ञात गजर सेवकों एवं जवजभन्न सीएपीएफ से जनजी व्यजि एवं ऄन्य ऄज्ञात
के जवरुद्ध भारतीय न्याय संजहता की धारा 61(2) सपर त भ्रिाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (2018 में यथा संिोजधत)
की धारा 07, 07-ए ,08 & 12 के तहत ऄपराध करने के जलए साथ ही आस मामले के ऄन्वेषण के दौरान प्रकाि में अए
दकन्ही ऄन्य ऄपराधों एवं ऐसे एक या ईससे ऄजधक ऄपराधों से जुड़े या ईससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र
एवं/ऄथवा ईसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या ईन्हीं तथ्यों से ईत्सपन्न दकसी ऄन्य ऄपराध(धों) के जलए जनयजमत मामला के
पंजीकरण हेतु ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार झारखंड राज्य में
करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/99/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2025
S.O. 2222.—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 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-430/2025-7229/Ranchi, Dated 28.11.2025,
Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made vide letter No. 979/CO-13/2025-R,
dated 19.11.2025 of DIG of Police/Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to
all the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Jharkhand for registration of regular case
against the following suspect persons :-
1. Sh. Sandeep Ranjan, 21C(GD), Regtl. No. 111110658, SHQ (Patna), ITBP.
2. Sh. Ashutosh Kunal Gupta, S/o Sh. Bindeshwari, Constable (GD), Regti. No. 090180277, 40 Bn, ITBP, R/o
Vill-Sarsaddaeh, PO-Belhar, Distt-Banka (Bihar).
3. Sh. Manoj Kumar, S/o Sh. Ajay Prasad Mathuri, Constable (GD) Regti. No. 130460704, SHQ(Patna), ITBP,
R/o Vill-Ajmatganj Paraiya, PO-Paraiya, Teh-Tikari, Distt-Gaya(Bihar).
4. Unknown public servants and personnel from various CAPFs & unknown others.
for committing offences u/s 61(2) BNS r/w Sec. 07, 07-A, 08 & 12 of PC Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018)
and any other offence(s) that may come into light during investigation of 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.
[F. No. 228/99/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7663
नइ ददल्ली, 17 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2223.—केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन ऄजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय
ऄजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की ईप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए ऄजधसूचना सं.
जी.ओ.(2डी).सं.57, ददनांक 03.03.2025, गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग, संिोजधत ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.(2डी).सं.168,
ददनांक 10.06.2025, गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग, संिोजधत ऄजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.(2डी).सं.380, ददनांक 25.11.2025,
गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तजमलनाडु राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से मेससत सेल्वी ऄथत मुवसत एवं रांस्ट्पोर्टसत
प्राआवेट जलजमटेड एवं ईनके जनदेिकगण श्री इ.अनंदराज, श्री. इ.अनंन्द कुमार, श्री. वी.एलुमलाइ गारंटीकतात/मोरगेजर,
नंबर -1, मररयम्मन कोली स्ट्रीट, काल्लादीकुप्पम, जवल्लुपुरम जजला एवं आंजडयन बैंक के ऄज्ञात ऄजधकाररयों के जवरुद्ध
आंजडयन बैंक को 3.56 करोड़ रुपये की धोखाधड़ी करने हेतु भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 120-बी सपर त धाराएँ 420
एवं 406, भ्रिाचार जनवारण ऄजधजनयम, 1988 की धारा 13(2) सपर त धारा 13(1)(घ) एवं भ्रिाचार जनवारण
ऄजधजनयम, 1988 (वषत 2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 13(2) सपर त 13(1)(क) के तहत केन्रीय ऄन्वेषण ब्यूरो,
जविेष कायत िाखा, चेन्नइ द्वारा आसका ऄन्वेषण करने के जलए प्रथम सूचना ररपोटत के पंजीकरण हेतु ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस
स्ट्थापन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु राज्य में करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/98/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2025
S.O. 2223.—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 Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.57, Dated 03.03.2025, Home
(Citizenship) Department, Amendment Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.168, Dated 10.06.2025, Home (Citizenship)
Department and Amendment Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.380, Dated 25.11.2025, Home (Citizenship) Department,
hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the
State of Tamil Nadu for registration of First Information Report (FIR) for investigation by Central Bureau of
Investigation, Special Task Branch, Chennai under section 120-B read with sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal
Code, section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 13(2) read with
section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against M/s. Selvi Earth Movers &
Transports Private Ltd., and their Directors Shri. E.Anandraj, Shri. E.Anand Kumar, Shri. V.Elumalai Guarantor /
Mortgagor, of No.1, Mariamman Koil Street, Kalladikuppam, Villupuram District and unknown Bank Officials of
Indian Bank for cheating the Indian Bank to a tune of Rs. 3.56 crores.
[F. No. 228/98/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 22 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2224.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की
ईपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, ईपखंड (ii) में सं्यांक
का.अ. 732, तारीख 23 ददसंबर, 2023 द्वारा प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के कार्णमक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय
की ऄजधसूचना में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, ऄथात्:-
ईि ऄजधसूचना की सारणी में,-
(क) श्री ऄजय चौधरी से संबंजधत क्रम सं्यांक 1 और ईससे संबंजधत प्रजवजियों का तारीख 23 ऄक्टूबर, 2024
से लोप दकया जाएगा ।
7664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ख) श्री मृणाल कांजत देब से संबंजधत क्रम सं्यांक 6 और ईससे संबंजधत प्रजवजियों का तारीख 01 जनवरी,
2025 से लोप दकया जाएगा ।
(ग) श्री ऄजवजजत बरन दास से संबंजधत क्रम सं्यांक 7 और ईससे संबंजधत प्रजवजियों का तारीख
20 जनवरी, 2024 से लोप दकया जाएगा ।
[फा. सं. 225/44/2022-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
[रटप्पणः- मूल ऄजधसूचना भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, ईपखंड (ii) में सं्यांक का.अ. 732, तारीख
23 ददसंबर, 2023 द्वारा प्रकाजित की गइ थी]
New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2025
S.O. 2224.—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. 732, dated the 23rd December, 2023, namely: -
In the said notification, in the Table,-
(a) serial number 1 relating to Shri Ajay Chaudhuri and the entries relating thereto, shall be omitted with
effect from 23rd October, 2024;
(b) serial number 6 relating to Shri Mrinal Kanti Deb and the entries relating thereto, shall be omitted with
effect from 1st January, 2025;
(c) serial number 7 relating to Shri Avijit Baran Das and the entries relating thereto, shall be omitted with
effect from 20th January, 2024.
[F. No. 225/44/2022-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
[Note: The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide
number S.O. 732, dated the 23rd December, 2023]
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2225.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की
ईपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, ईपखंड (ii) में,
सं्यांक का.अ. 238, तारीख 5 जनवरी, 2023 द्वारा प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के कार्णमक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन
मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना को, ईन बातों के जसवाय, जो ऐसे जवखंडन से पूवत की गइ हैं या जजनके दकए जाने का लोप दकया
गया हज, जवखंजडत करती हज।
[फा. सं. 225/17/2022-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2225.—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 rescinds 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. 238, dated the 5th January, 2023, except as respects things done or omitted to
be done before such rescission.
[F. No. 225/17/2022-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2226.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की
ईपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, ईपखंड (ii) में, सं्यांक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7665
का.अ. 7, तारीख 28 ददसंबर, 2015 द्वारा प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के कार्णमक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय की
ऄजधसूचना में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, ऄथात्:-
ईि ऄजधसूचना में, श्री भारत भूषण िमात से संबंजधत क्रम सं्या 5 और ईससे संबंजधत प्रजवजि का लोप दकया
जाएगा।
[फा. सं. 225/21/2015-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2226.—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 amendment 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. 7, dated the 28th December, 2015, namely: -
In the said notification, serial number 5 relating to Sh. Bharat Bhushan Sharma and the entry relating thereto
shall be omitted.
[F. No. 225/21/2015-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2227.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18
की ईपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मध्य प्रदेि सरकार द्वारा ऄजधसूचना सं.
1/5/96/एक्सएक्स-बी(वन)/2220/2015 तारीख 28 जुलाइ, 2015 द्वारा ऄजधसूजचत जवचारण न्यायालयों में
ऄजभयोजन करने से श्री रंजन िमात और श्री मुकेि कुमार जमश्रा, लोक ऄजभयोजकों के नामों को तत्सकाल प्रभाव से
हटाती हज और आस प्रयोजन के जलए भारत सरकार के कार्णमक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय, कार्णमक और
प्रजिक्षण जवभाग की ऄजधसूचना सं्यांक का.अ. 1923, तारीख 1 ऄिूबर, 2015 में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन
करती हज, ऄथात्:-
ईि ऄजधसूचना की में, जनम्नजलजखत क्रमांक सं्याओं और ईनसे संबंजधत प्रजवजियों का लोप दकया
जाएगा, ऄथात्:-
3. श्री रंजन िमात; और
5. श्री मुकेि कुमार जमश्रा।
[फा. सं. 225/19/2015-एवीडी-II]
सत्सयम श्रीवास्ट्तव, ऄवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2227.—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 amendment in the
notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of
Personnel and Training number S.O. 1923, dated the 1st October, 2015, namely: –
In the said notification, the following serial numbers and the entry relating thereto shall be omitted with
immediate effect, namely: –
Sl. No.
Name of Special Public Prosecutor
3.
Shri Ranjan Sharma
5.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Mishra
[F. No. 225/19/2015-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
7666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय
नइ ददल्ली, 23 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2228.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
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; लखनउ ds iapkV (68/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. एल- 41012/27/2012-अइ अर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2025
S.O. 2228.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 68/2012) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Northern Railway and
their workmen.
[No. L-41012/27/2012– IR(B-1)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
I.D.NO. 68 of 2012
(Reference No. L-41012/27/2012-IR(B-I)Dated 30.08.2012)
Shri Sheetla Prasad,
Son of late Ramanand,
Village- Bharthi Saraiya,
Post- Makdoom Nagar,
District- Sultanpur. ……………Appellant
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway,
Muradabad Division,
Muradabad(UP). .…………..Respondent
JUDGMENT
By means of order/reference no. L-41012/27/2012-IR(B1) dated 30.08.2012, the Central Government
considered it desirable to refer the dispute for adjudication to the following effect:-
"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway, Muradabad in terminating the services
of Shri Sheetala Prasad S/o Shri Ramanand w. e. f 22/12/1986, is legal and justified? To what relief the
workman is entitled?"
In pursuance to the said reference I.D. Case No. 68/2012 registered before this tribunal.
Thereafter claimant filed his statement of claim before this tribunal on 24.09.2012 in which it has been stated that
Shri Sheetal Prasad/ workman was initially engaged as casual labour on 16.01.1975 and in the said capacity work till
21.12.1986 however, his services were retrenched/termination on 22.12.1986.
Further in claim statement the relief as claimed by workman is that his termination/retrenchment, order dated
22.12.1986 may be set aside, he may be reinstated service with all constitutional benefit.
The respondent has filed written statement and thereafter the rejoinder and documents/evidence have been exchanged
between parties.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7667
On behalf of respondent a plea was taken that as per the case of workman, his services was retrenchment on
22.12.1986, for redressed of his grievances approached the authority in the year 2012.
Thereafter reference was made on 30.08.2012, so the case filed by the workman is able to be dismissed on the ground
of delay and he is not entitled for any relief.
FINDING AND CONCLUSION
As per to the admitted facts of the present case, the claimant/workman was engaged as casual labour on 24.09.2012,
and his services was retrenched/terminated on 22.12.1986.
Thereafter for redressal of his grievances approached the authority in the year 2012, the present reference has been
made on 30.08.2012, filed his claim statement on 24.09.2012, before this tribunal.
In view of the said facts the claim statement filed by workman against his retrenchment/termination, dated
22.12.1986, was after 16 years, so the same is highly belated as such he is not entitled for any relief in view of the law
which are quoted here in below:
In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 455 it was noted at paragraph 6 as
follows:
"6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under
Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters
which had since heel) settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears
to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a
lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from ser-vice. At the time reference was
made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale
could not be the subject-matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to
be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it
appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the
circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time
when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other
employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed
and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising an
industrial dispute was ex-facie bad and incompetent."
Further, in S.M. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003 (4) SCC 27 the position was
reiterated as follows: (at para 17)
"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account of delay in raising the dispute by the
appellants the High Court was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree. It is true, as
held in M/s. Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen (supra) AIR 1959 SC 1217), that merely because the
Industrial Disputes Act does not pro-vide for a limitation for raising the dispute it does not mean that the
dispute can be raised at any time and without regard to the delay and reasons therefor. There is no
limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that the
disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings
have failed particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale. A delay of 4 years in
raising the dispute after even reemployment of the most of the old workmen was held to be fatal in M/ s.
Shalimar Works Limited v. Their Workmen (supra) AIR 1959 SC 1217, In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P.
Madhavankutty and others (supra) AIR 2000 SC 839, a delay of 7 years was held to be fatal and disentitled
to workmen to any relief. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others v Union of India and others (supra) 1993
AIR SCW 2214, it was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer deprives himself of remedy
available in law by delay itself, lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay
would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence relevant to adjudication being lost and
rendered not available. However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has been so culpable as
to disentitle the appellants for any relief. Although the High Court has opined that there was a delay of 7 to 9
years in raising the dispute before the Tribunal but we find the High Court factually not correct. The
employment of the appellants was terminated sometime in 1985-86 or 1986-87. Pursuant to the judgment in
Daily Rated Casual Employees Under P&T Department v. Union of India (supra) AIR 1987 SC 2342, the
department was formulating a scheme to accommodate casual labourers and the appellants were justified in
awaiting the outcome thereof. On 16-1-1990 they were refused to be accommodated in the scheme. On 28-
12-1990 they initiated the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act followed by conciliation
proceedings and then the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court. We do not think
that the appellants deserve to be non suited on the ground of delay."
7668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity vs. Pahal Singh reported in 2007 12 SCC
193 and more particularly paragraph Nos. 10, 11, which read as under:-
"10. The Labour Court was also under an obligation to consider as to whether any relief, if at all could be
granted in favour of the workman in view of the fact that the industrial dispute had been raised after 18
years. It was obligatory on the part of the Labour Court to consider that the respondent was in employment
for very short period. It had also not arrived at a finding that the respondent was in continuous service
within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or for that matter in terminating the
ser-vices of the respondent, the appellant did not comply with the requirements of law particularly Section 6-
N thereof. In absence of such a finding, the High Court in our opinion should have interfered with the
Award.
11. It is now well-settled principle of law that "delay de-feats equity".
(see also Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank vs. Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91)
Further, in the present case, it is also not in dispute rather admitted by the workman has raised his grievance to be
included in screening for year 1983-84 by means of raising industrial dispute in the year 2003, which was referred to
this Tribunal after 20 years, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Because, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur
Bench, in the case of M.D./Chief Manager, Jaipur Agar, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur vs.
General Secretary, Rajasthan Transport Workers Organisation, Jaipur, 2024 (182) FLR 892, has held as under:
"6. In the case at hand, the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Driver vide order dated
17.12.1986. Accordingly, the benefit of first selection scale became due after nine years, sometime in 2004-
2005. The same was not done and neither was the non-grant of the benefit at the time was challenged by the
respondent-workman. The benefit of first selection scale was only granted vide order dated 06.04.2004. This
deferment was also not challenged immediately and was only challenged for the first time in 2013. The first
issue that is to be decided by this Court is what effect, if any, would this delay have on the merits of the case.
7. To decide the first issue, recourse may be taken to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment of Mohan Lal (supra), the
relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:
"19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made
under the ID Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the
Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such
objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh [Asstt.
Eng., Rajasthan Development Corpn. v. Gitam Singh], that before exercising its judicial discretion, the
Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature
of employment, length of service, of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the
delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed.
20. Now, if the facts of the present case are seen, the position that emerges is this: the workman worked as a
work-charged employee for a period from 1.11.1984 to 17.2.1986 (in all he worked for 286 days during his
employment). The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 18.2.1986. The workman raised
the industrial dispute in 1992 i.e. after 6 years of termination. The Labour Court did not keep in view
admitted delay of 6 years in raising the industrial dispute by the workman. The judicial discretion exercised
by the Labour Court is, thus, flawed and unsustainable. The Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in
error in restoring the award of the Labour Court whereby reinstatement was granted to the workman.
Though, the compensation awarded by the Single Judge was too low and needed to be enhanced by the
Division Bench but surely reinstatement of the workman in the facts and circumstances is not the
appropriate relief."
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh (supra), held as under:
"6. We shall at the outset deal with the issue of limitation. The respondent was retired compulsorily from
service on 4.1.2003. Original Civil Suit No. 41 of 2010 was instituted in 2010. The trial Judge as well as the
first appellate court were of the view that the suit was not barred by limitation since the representation of the
respondent for the grant of the three selection grades was rejected on 18.1.2010. The first appellate court,
while concurring with the trial Judge also noted that the "final request" made by the respondent-plaintiff on
18.1.2010 was rejected and hence the suit was within limitation.
7. The respondent waited for seven long years after his retirement to pursue a claim for the grant of selection
grade. This was clearly beyond the residuary period of limitation of three years provided in Article 137 of
the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. That apart, in the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Shankar Lal Parmar, the Court has considered the ambit of the scheme for selection grade. This Court has
held thus:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7669
"6. Another important and relevant clause in the said order for our perusal is Clause 7, which is also
reproduced hereinbelow:
7. Selection grades in terms of this order shall be granted only to those employees whose record of service is
satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be
considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection grade.
7. Clause 7 makes it clear that only those employees would be entitled for grant of selection grades, whose
service record has been satisfactory and are otherwise eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority but
have not been able to get the same as there might not be any channel of promotion or for want of sanctioned
posts in the cadre."
8. The Court held that in terms of Clause 7, only those employees whose service record has been satisfactory
could be entitled to be granted selection grade. In this context, the Court held:
"17. Clause 7 further makes it clear that only those/such employees would be entitled to be granted selection
grade whose service record has been satisfactory. This implicitly shows that the person who has an
untainted, unblemished, clean and unpolluted record in service would be treated on a higher pedestal than
those who have either tainted, blemished, unclean or polluted record. This obviously appears to be a
reasonable classification and is under the ambit and touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is
neither any ambiguity nor any doubt in the same."
9. On the touchstone of the above principles, it is evident that the respondent had been subjected to several
disciplinary proceedings and as many as 19 charge- sheets were issued against him which resulted in
penalties of a varying nature. The service record of the respondent cannot be regarded as untainted or clean.
10. Ms Nidhi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that some of the penalties which were imposed
on the respondent were without cumulative effect. The consequence of the withholding of increments without
cumulative effect is that after the period prescribed, the respondent would be entitled to restoration of the
original pay scale or the original pay. However, this does not obviate the position that the imposition of the
penalty itself indicates that the service record of the employee was not satisfactory. Another submission
which has been urged is that the penalties were of a minor nature. Assuming that to be so, it is evident that
for the grant of selection grade, the respondent did not fulfil the requirements of a clean record of service.
The grant of the selection grade is not a matter of right and was subject to the terms and conditions which
were stipulated. The respondent failed to fulfil these terms and conditions.
11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that both on the question of limitation as well as on merits, the
respondent was not entitled to the relief which was sought. The suit instituted by the respondent resp seven
years after he had demitted office was barred by limitation. That apart, the respondent failed to meet the
basic requirements for the selection grade." (Emphasis supplied)
Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Bichitrananda Behera (supra), after considering the erstwhile
judgments of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, Union of India v. N. Murugesan, and Chairman, State Bank of
India v. M.J. James, concluded that delay and laches are vital in service matters, and can be seen as
acquiescence."
AWARD
For the foregoing reasons the workman is not entitled for any relief as per the Reference No. L-41012/27/2012-IR(B-
I) dated 30.08.2012 and the same is answered accordingly.
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
Date: 15.07.2025
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 23 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2229.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
जम्मू और कश्मीर बैंक जलजमटेड का कॉपोरेट कायातलय 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; चंडीगढ- II ds iapkV (23/2024)
izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2025-अइ अर (बी-I)-146]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
7670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2025
S.O. 2229.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Jammu and
Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate Office and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR (B-I)-146]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).
ID No.23/2024
Mohd Iqbal Shanawaz and others Snagram Bhata Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of
Jammu and Kashmir.
2. M/s AP Securities Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010.
----Respondents
Present:-
None for workman.
Sh. S C Gupta, AR for respondent no.1.
Sh. Puneet Kumar, AR for respondent no.2.
Award : 24.10.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.08(30)/2024/RLC/Jmu dated 24.09.2024, under
sub-section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
1)
“Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not regularize service of security guards
who are performing duty on perennial nature of job is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
2)
The Jammu and Kashmir Bank not come under Scheduled Employment of Central Minimum Wages
Act, 1948. However, whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank
Limited Corporate Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s
AP Securities Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for implementing Central
Minimum Wages in respect of all security guards is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
3)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not giving payment of overtime for
Sundays/holiday duty to its security guards is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
4)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not implementing insurance coverage of
its security guards is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled
to and from which date?
5)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7671
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not giving payment of risk allowances
@Rs.1000/- as per past practice to its security guards is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief
the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
6)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not giving all kind of leave as per past
practice to its security guards is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen
are entitled to and from which date?
7)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not giving termination benefits like
notice pay, retrenchment benefits to its security guards is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief
the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
8)
The demand raised by applicant‟s is not fit for reference for adjudication. However, the both
opponent‟s were directed during conciliation proceedings to stop the victimization of security guards
under pretext of fabricated allegations. Both opponents replied that management is committed for no
victimization of all workmen in their management. However, they will keep close watch in future also
for no victimization of any workmen.
9)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not giving HRA or house
accommodations/transport allowance to its security guards job is legal and justified? If not, then to
what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
10)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not giving good quality of uniform for
summer and winter season two pairs per year to its security guards is legal and justified? If not, then to
what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
11)
Whether the action of management of the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited Corporate
Office, MA Road, Srinagar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Vicky Singh, M/s AP Securities
Private Ltd. Babliana Road, Gangyal Pully Jammu-180010 for not giving pay slip, I card, employment
card duly countersigned by principal employer to its security guards is legal and justified? If not, then
to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
1. On receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the workman for 20.12.2024 for appearance and for filing
claim statement. However, no one turned up on behalf of workman on 20.12.2024 despite of service. Fresh
notice was issued to the workman on 20.12.2024 for 04.03.2025. However, no one turned up on 04.03.2025 on
behalf of workman and registered notice was issued on 04.03.2025 for 03.07.2025. Notice issued for
03.07.2025 was duly served on the address of workman on 10.05.2025 as per track report. However, no one
turned up on behalf of workman on 03.07.2025 also and fresh registered notice was again issued for
24.10.2025 for appearance and for filing claim statement. The notice is not received back, therefore, it is
presumed that the service is complete. However, today also no one has turned up on behalf of workman
despite of service. The workman has been given sufficient opportunities for appearance and for filing claim
statement, but he did not turned up in spite of the opportunities afforded to him for filing claim statement,
which shows that he is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
2. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly,
'No Claim Award' is passed in the present reference.
3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the ID Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 23 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2230.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
जमजलरी फाम्सत, वेस्ट्टनत कमांड मु्यालय, चंडीमंददर, जजला पंचकुला 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; चंडीगढ- II ds iapkV
(06/2009) izdkf'kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 14011/7/2008-अइ अर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
7672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2025
S.O. 2230.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/2009) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh-II as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Military
Farms,Western Command Headquarters, Chandimandir Distt. Panchkula and their workmen.
[No. L-14011/7/2008- IR (B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No.06/2009
Registered on:-10.06.2009
1.
Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Banwari Lal
2.
Bhim Singh S/o Sh. Mangat Ram
3.
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Mam Chand
4.
Jagdish S/o Sh. Babu Ram
5.
Ram Singh S/o Sh. Parkash Chand
6.
Amar Singh S/o Sh. Pannu Ram.
-------- Applicants/Workmen
Versus
1.
Deputy Director, Military Farms, Western Command, Headquarters, Chandimandir, Distt. Panchkula.
2.
Officer Incharge Military Farm, Bir Dhantur PO Shahbad Markanda, Distt. Kurukshetra.
----Respondents
Present:-
Sh. R P Rana, AR for workmen.
Sh. Arun Batra, AR for respondent no.1 & 2.
Award :24.11.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.L-14011/7/2008-IR(DU) dated 20.05.2009, under sub-section (1)
and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), has referred the
following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
―Whether the demand of S/Shri Jarnail Singh S/o Banwari Lal, (ii) Bhim Singh S/o Mangata Ram, (iii)
Suresh Kumar S/o Mam Chand, (iv) Jagdish S/o Babu Ram, (v) Ram Singh S/o Prakash Chand, (vi)
Amar Singh S/o Pannu Ram, for engagement in the Military Farm, Bir Dhantauri/Ambala is just and
fair? If yes, what relief the concerned are entitled to and from which date?‖
1.
The brief facts, related to the case are that the workmen were employed with respondent no.2
w.e.f. 07.04.1990 as farms hands. All of them were sponsored by the employment exchange against the requisition
sent by the respondent no.2 and after proper screening and scrutiny by a duly constituted committee were appointed
on daily wage basis. The workmen were also granted temporary status under the Scheme dated 01.09.1993 of the
Government of India. The workmen were governed by the Model Standing Orders issued by the respondents under
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 in 1982. Under these statutory orders, the workman engaged
through employment exchange, who has been in continuous service for 6 months was to be brought on to the regular
establishment. It was also a condition that no recruitment is to be made otherwise that through the employment
exchange by issuing executive instructions from time to time. The seniority of all workmen is to be on all India Basis.
It is also policy that surplus are to be transferred and adjusted at other stations and not to be retrenched. The work is
of permanent and perennial nature and includes agriculture and other diary functions. Vide order dated 19.03.1999,
services of all the workmen were retrenched on the ground of reduction in workload with a specific assurance that
they would be considered for re-engagement as per their seniority as and when regular vacancy occurs. They may
also take up job basis work to the extent available. On 28.07.1999, the farm was stated to have been closed due to
some administrative decisions, which are not on record. However, immediately thereafter the farm was revived. The
disbanding and closing of the farm was only a sham transaction to dispense with the services of the workmen.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7673
2.
The applicants filed OA No.1138-HR-92 before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
(hereinafter called as Hon'ble CAT, Chandigarh) and Hon'ble CAT, Chandigarh vide order dated 23.09.1992 give
directions to the respondent to maintain status quo qua the present applicants and the said order was modified vide
order dated 31.05.1993 with the direction to the respondent not to terminate services of the applicants as long as
requirement of work is there. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.07.1999 (Ex. WW1/6), the Hon'ble Tribunal dispose of
the aforesaid OA No.1138-HR-92 with the direction that party would be bound by the observation and direction given
in this case not to terminate the services of the workmen. The workmen filed CWP No.16420 of 1999 before the
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against the decision dated 28.07.1999 (Ex. WW1/6) of Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh. The said CWP was dismissed on 30.08.2006 by the Hon'ble High Court. The management in its written
statement filed before the Hon'ble High Court had stated that the Dhantauri Farm had been revived in the year 2001.
It was therefore imperative on them to have offered the job to the workmen as required under Section 25H of the Act.
In view of the order of retrenchment dated 19.03.1999, the management was under an obligation to re-engage/re-
appoint them on the revival of the farm. It is prayed that the workmen be reinstated in service from the date new
hands have been employed/engaged.
3.
Notice of claim was given to the respondent no.1 & 2, who filed reply thereof maintaining therein that the
workmen were retrenched in the year 1999 due to non availability of work. The job in which the workmen were
employed was not a regular nature and they were not engaged against any regular post with the military department.
They worked as daily wager against casual work, which does not come within the purview of the Act. It is also
maintained that the respondent no.1 and 2 does not fall within the definition of ‗Industry‘ as defined under the Act.
Due to reduction of work at military farm at Bir Dhantauri, the workmen were retrenched after paying due
compensation admissible in the rules. The seniority of casual labour is counted in farm enrolment and not on All
India Basis as per rules. There is no existence of military farm at Bir Dhantauri at present. The said unit has been
disbanded and remains closed w.e.f. 01.04.2005. The land/assets of military farm at Bir Dhantauri have been
transferred to local military authority, Station HQ Ambala Cantt. and army guard has already been deployed by 40
Arty Division at Bir Dhantauri. As per orders of the higher authorities, the military department has been permitted to
rear cattle in order to facilitate watch and ward of land/assets to avoid any encroachment and to avoid loss to the state
till land and assets are not acquired by LMA. The routine work of rearing young stock is being done by outsourcing
as per Government Policy on part of Military Farm, Ambala till permitted by the LMA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that Government offices/state offices are not covered under the category of Industrial Establishments and as
such labour court has no jurisdiction. The claim of applicants has already been dismissed by the Hon'ble CAT,
Chandigarh and same order has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. It is prayed that the
claim of applicants/workmen be dismissed.
4.
Parties were given opportunities to lead evidence.
Evidence of workman:
5.
Workman Sh. Jarnail Singh has examined himself as W1 and filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.WW1 and
has been cross-examined by the AR of respondent no.1 & 2. AR for workman closed the evidence on behalf of
workman on 23.05.2014.
6.
In order to clarify the fact, applicants have filed affidavit of Sh. Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Banwari Lal on
10.09.2025, which is taken on record as Ex.P1 and opportunity was given to the respondents to file counter affidavit.
However, in response thereof, no counter affidavit was filed. Simple reply was filed by the AR for respondents on
31.10.2025, which is taken on record as Ex.M2. Workmen in their evidence has relied upon following documents:-
Sr. No.
Document
Date
Ex./Annexure
1.
Award
11.11.2010
WW1/1
2.
Attendance Register
WW1/2
3.
Payment Voucher
WW1/3
4.
Seniority list
WW1/4
along
with
Annexure P2 & P3
5.
Order in LPA 754/2010
29.11.2014
WW1/5
6.
CAT order
28.07.1999
WW1/6
7.
Order in CWP No.16420/1999
30.08.2006
WW1/7
8.
Claim Statement
Annexure A
9.
Retrenchment order
19.03.1999
Annexure B
10.
Order
25.08.2010
Annexure C
7674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
-
Order of CAT, Chandigarh in OA
No.1129/2017
18.02.2019
Annexure E
12.
Order
of
CAT
in
MA
No.952/2019
12.03.2025
Annexure F
13.
Order in CWP No.22648/2025
13.08.2025
Annexure G
14.
Affidavit of Jarnail Singh
10.09.2025
Ex.P1
Evidence of respondents:-
7.
The respondents have filed affidavit of Lt. Col SA Patil, Officer Incharge, Military Farm, Ambala Cantt.,
who filed his affidavit in evidence as Ex.RX and has been cross-examined by the learned counsel of workman. AR
for respondents closed the evidence on 14.07.2016 and the case was fixed for arguments. Respondent in its evidence
has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No.
Document
Date
Ex./Annexure
1.
Provisions
of
Administrative
Tribunal Act
Annexure R-1
2.
Letter
20.09.1967
Annexure R-2
3.
Extract from gazette of India
01.11.1975
Annexure R-3
4.
Letter
17.07.1998
Annexure R-4
5.
Reply
to
affidavit
dated
10.09.2025 of Jarnail Singh
31.10.2025
Ex.M2
Submissions of applicants:-
8.
While arguing the case, ld. counsel for the applicants contended that applicants were employed by
respondent no.2 w.e.f. 07.04.1990 as farm hand through employment exchange after appropriate screening committee
on daily wage basis. Workmen worked as such and they filed case before Hon'ble CAT, Chandigarh (OA NO.1138-
HR-92) as they were apprehending their termination by the respondent no.2. On 23.09.1992, Hon'ble CAT
Chandigarh ordered that status quo be maintained by the respondents and workmen may not be terminated. However,
their request for regularization was not accepted as per order dated 28.07.1999 (Ex.WW1/6). Against the order of the
Hon'ble CAT, Chandigarh, workmen filed CWP No.16420 of 1999 before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High.
However, Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said CWP on 30.08.2006. In the meanwhile, workmen were removed
from the services vide letter dated 19.03.1999 (Annexure B only of one workman placed on record and remaining
letters are alike Annexure B) by maintaining that they are being removed from the services due to reduction of work
and in the retrenchment order of each workman, it was stated as follows:-
“2. You would be considered for re-engagement as per your seniority as and when regular vacancy occurs. You may
also take up “Job Basis” work to the extent available.”
9.
AR for workmen further contended that after the dismissal of the CWP, it came to the knowledge of the
workmen that junior to the applicants were also retrenched on 19.03.1999/23.03.1999. He further contended that
workmen were senior to the said workmen namely Ramcharan and 18 others. The said Junior of the workmen Sh.
Ramcharan and 18 others filed a claim statement on 13.05.2010 and in the said case, CGIT-I, Chandigarh passed
order in view of the settlement dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure C) done by the respondent no. 1 & 2 with those juniors.
In this way, juniors to the workmen continued to work with respondents. However, workmen were not called for any
work. He further contended that in the year 2017, juniors to the workmen apprehend that they were likely to be
retrenched, they filed OA No.060/1129/2017 before the Hon'ble CAT Chandigarh and Hon'ble CAT Chandigarh vide
order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure E) directed to the respondent to constitute a committee and ordered their
continuation in the service. However, later on, nothing was done by the respondents and therefore execution was filed
by the said juniors in MA No.952 of 2019 in the Hon'ble CAT, Chandigarh (Annexure F), in which it is held as
under:-
21. After going through the detailed objections filed by the respondents and the subsequent rebuttal to the
same, we feel that the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in OA No.060/1129/2017 has not been complied with in
its letter and spirit in the light of record of applicants, orders passed by respondents relating to age and grant
of Temporary Status and in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7675
22.In view of the forgoing, all these Executions Applications are allowed. Respondents are directed for strict
compliance of the order dated 18.02.2019 in its true letter and spirit within two months of the date of receipt of
this order.
10.
Thereafter, respondents had gone in writ petition bearing CWP No.22648 of 2025 against the said order and
Hon'ble High Court in its decision dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure G) has held that directions given by Hon'ble CAT
Chandigarh on 12.03.2025 (Annexure F) to implement order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure E) be complied with and
has dismissed the appeal of Union of India. He thus contended that in this case, present workmen, who were senior as
per seniority list (Ex.WW1/4) were entitled to be kept in services, however, it has not been done, which is violation of
Section 25H and 25T of the Act. Thus, prayed for reinstatement of the present workmen from the date when juniors
were kept in service and for payment of all consequential benefits.
11.
On the other hand, ld. counsel for the management contended that compensation was paid to the applicants
along with other workers at the time of their retrenchment. The applicants were purely daily wagers and now the
military farm stands closed. Hence, the applicants are not entitled for their continuation in the service and cannot be
granted any relief.
12.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
13.
Before entering into the actual controversy between the parties, it will be pertinent to mention those facts
which are admitted between the parties. It has been admitted by both the parties that currently Bir Dhantauri Military
Farm stands closed. Under these circumstances, we are to see if applicants are workmen and respondent is an industry
and if so, whether workmen are entitled for reinstatement from the date when their juniors were kept in service and
all consequential benefits or otherwise what relief can be given to them.
14.
Now first question is whether the applicants are workman. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that
onus to prove that workman are in the employment of respondent is always on the workmen/claimants and it is for the
workmen to adduce evidence to prove the factum of his employment with the respondent. There is hardly any dispute
with the preposition of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases. In the present case, it has
clearly been admitted by the respondents that applicants were appointed w.e.f. 07.04.1990 as farm hand (daily wager)
and they were retrenched in the year 1999 and all the workmen were appointed through employment exchange. As
such, it clearly establishes the relationship of employee and employer between the applicants and respondents. In this
regard, reference can be made to the decision in the case of Devinder Singh Versus Municipal Council, Sanaur,
AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2532, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 2(S) of
Act which deals with the definition of ―workman‖ has observed as follows:-
“The source of employment, the quantum of recruitment, the terms & conditions of employment/contract of
service, the quantum of wages/pay and mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a
person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition of workman also does not
make any distinction between full time and part time employee or a person appointed on contract basis. There
is nothing in the plain language of Section 2(s) from which it can be inferred that only person employed on
regular basis or a person employed for doing whole time job is a workman and the one employed on
temporary, part time or contract basis on fixed wages or as a casual employee or for doing duty for fixed hours
is not a workman.”
15.
It is clear from the perusal of aforesaid observation that even if a person is engaged on temporary, part time
daily wages or contract basis or for doing any other kind of work and is duly paid wages for the said work, in that
eventuality such a person would be covered by the definition of ―workman‖ as provided under Section 2(s) of the
Act. Thus, it is held that workmen were engaged on temporary basis. However, they fall under the definition of
workman as stated above under Section 2(s) of the Act.
16.
The question which arises for consideration is whether the establishment Military Farm is an industry. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Banglore_ Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa 1978(36) FLR 266
dealt at length with the ambit and scope of expression "industry" as defined in Section 2(J) of the Act, and has laid
down triple test for determining whether a particular establishment is industry or not. The triple test is where (a)
systematic activity (b) organized by cooperation between employer and employee(the direct and substantial element
is commercial (c) for the production or distribution of goods and services to calculated to satisfy human wants and
wishes prima facie is an "Industry" in that enterprise. Coming into the case in hand, the work assigned to the
workmen relates to do work of catering animals and other related work for production of milk with the cooperation of
the workmen and respondent. Thus, all the necessary ingredients of the above judgment are satisfied.
17.
It is also mentioned here that workmen were not regular employees of the respondent as regular employees
are governed by Central Civil Service Rules. The workmen, who were casual workers, are not governed by the
aforesaid rules and are governed by the Act and if any dispute arises, the same is governed by the Act.
18.
Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Chief Conservator of Forest Versus Jagannath Maruti
Kondhare (1996 (2) SCT 164), has held that work, which was not be regarded as a part of inalienable of inescapable
7676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
function of the State and which work can be well undertaken by a private agency does not require an instrumentality
of State, such functions of the State fall within the ambit of Industry. Thus, function of doing diary cannot be said to
be sovereign function of the State and thus for this purpose of industrial dispute, respondents would be termed as
industry.
19.
Now next question, which arise for consideration is that whether workmen who were retrenched vide order
dated 19.03.1999 (Annexure B) and their juniors were also retrenched on the same date, they have not been offered
employment in view of the Section 25H of the Act, which read as follows:-
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes
to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity 2 [to
the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for reemployment and such retrenched
workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
20.
Admittedly, in this case, workmen were removed vide retrenchment order dated 19.03.1999. One of the
order has been placed on file (Annexure B) by the AR for workmen, operative part of which is reproduced as under:-
1. Due to reduction of work, your casual employment is hereby terminated with immediate effect. One month
salary in lieu of notice and compensation @15 days salary at current rate for each completed year with 240
days attendance is enclosed vide cheque no.170972 dated 23.03.1999 for Rs.14602.00.
2. You would be considered for re-engagement as per your seniority as and when regular vacancy occurs. You
may also take up “Job Basis” work to the extent available.
21.
In the retrenchment order it is mentioned that the workmen would be considered as and when regular
vacancy occur, respondent were required to engage them.
However, in this case, junior to the workmen were retained in service and present workmen were senior to the said
workmen as is clear from the seniority list placed on file by the applicants as Ex.WW1/4. Name of the present
workmen are at Sr. No.10 to 12 and 14 to 16 and name of junior to the present workmen is at Sr. No.17 to 19, 21 to
24, 26 to 31, 32 & 35 as per the said seniority list (Ex.WW1/4). The same is also been highlighted by the applicant in
Annexure P-2 and P-3 (part of Ex.WW1/4).
22.
It is further mentioned here that junior of the applicant were also removed in the month of March 1999 and
the said junior to the workmen, who were 19 in number, filed a claim statement on 13.05.1990 in the CGIT-I,
Chandigarh and the matter was settled there on 25.08.2010 (Annexure C). Relevant part of the order is as follows:
“Case taken up in Lok Adalat for conciliation. It is agreed upon that all the 19 workers whose name figured in
the list supplied by the Ministry with reference shall visit the office of the prescribed authority, Shri Pradeep
Bahuguna at about 10:30 AM on 26.08.2010. It is further agreed that the prescribed authority shall make an
endeavor to settle all the claim of the persons whose name figured in the list as per the availability and
requirement as early as possible. The file shall be kept pending for the next Lok Adalat for further discussion
in Lok Adalat through conciliation proceedings. List case on 15.09.2010 in Lok Adalat.”
23.
Thus, in this way, junior to the present applicants continued with the work, however seniors (present
applicants) were retrenched and were not called for any work. In the year 2017, juniors apprehended that they would
be retrenched, they filed OA No.1222 of 2017 and OA No.1115 of 2017 before CAT, Chandigarh and CAT,
Chandigarh vide order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure E) directed the respondents to constitute a committee within a
period of three weeks, relevant para of which is reproduced as under:
11. Accordingly, the OAs are disposed of by directing the respondents to constitute a committee within a
period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, which will conduct and
conclude its proceedings within two months thereafter. If applicants wish to submit anything before
committee, the committee may also consider their pleas, before passing the final order.
24.
Later on, nothing was done by the respondent, Thereafter, execution was filed by the aforesaid juniors in
MA No.954 of 2019 in OA No.1222 of 2017 and MA No.956 of 2019 in OA No.1115 of 2017, which were allowed
vide order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure F) directing the respondents to strict compliance of order dated 18.02.2019
(Annexure E) in true letter and spirit within two months of the date of receipt of that order. Relevant part of order
dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure F) passed in MA No.954/956 of 2019 is reproduced as under:-
“21.After going through the detailed objections filed by the respondents and the subsequent rebuttal to the
same, we feel that the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in OA No.060/1129/2017 has not been complied with in
its letter and spirit in the light of record of applicants, order passed by respondents relating to age and grant
of Temporary Status and in the interest of justice, equity and fair-play.
22.In view of the foregoing, all these Execution Applications are allowed. Respondents are directed for strict
compliance of the order dated 18.02.2019 in its true letter and spirit within two months of the date of receipt
of this order.”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7677
25.
Thereafter, respondent had gone in writ petition bearing CWP No.22648 of 2025 and Hon'ble High Court in
its decision has held that direction given by the CAT Chandigarh vide order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure F) to
implement the order dated 18.02.2019 (Annexure E) and appeal of the respondent was dismissed. In this way, junior
to the applicant continued in service, whereas applicants were retrenched, who were senior as per seniority list
(Ex.WW1/4), were entitled to be kept in service, which is clear violation of Section 25T and Section 25H of the Act.
Section 25T of the Act provides as under:-
―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.”
26.
It is also added here that applicants had filed OA No.1138-HR-92 seeking their regularization before the
Hon'ble CAT, Chandigarh and vide order dated 28.07.1999 (Ex. WW1/6), the OA was dismissed. However, they
remained in service due to status quo given vide order dated 23.09.1992. However, due to dismissal of the OA vide
order dated 28.07.1999 (Ex.WW1/6), they were removed from service on the same date on 28.07.1999. Even CWP
filed against the order dated 28.07.1999 (Ex. WW1/6) was dismissed vide order dated 30.08.2006. However, main
question involved in the said litigation was regarding the regularization. However, in the present case, applicants have
sought relief of unfair labour practice under Section 25T and retaining of juniors under Section 25H of the Act.
27.
Thus, in view of the above, workmen were entitled for continuity in service as and when vacancy arises.
However, this fact can also not be ignored that junior to the workmen were retained in service ignoring applicant. At
this stage, Bir Dhanturi Military Farm does not exist. Hence, only remedy left with this Tribunal is to grant them
compensation.
28.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, each applicant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- along with
interest @6% from the date of reference of this case till the payment is made.
29.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presidng Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2231.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार,
मु्य कायतकारी ऄजधकारी, मेससत रजटल हाआड्रो पावर कॉपोरेिन, िालीमार, दकश्तवार, जम्मू और कश्मीर; मु्य
महाप्रबंधक, मेससत मेघा आंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर आंजीजनयररग जलजमटेड, रजटल एचइ प्रोजेक्ट, दराबिाला, जजला दकश्तवार, केंर
िाजसत प्रदेि जम्मू और कश्मीर और रजव कुमार िमात, कंपनी, एनएचपीसी वकतसत यूजनयन, जम्मू और कश्मीर मु्यालय,
कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II चंडीगढ पंचाट
(संदभत सं्या- 22/2024) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/267-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2231.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corp. Shalimar, Kishtwar, Jammu and
Kashmir The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Ltd. Rattle HE Project,
Darabshalla, Distt. Kishtwar, UT Jammu and Kashmir and Ravi Kumar Sharma Co NHPC Workers Union
JK Head Office Kishtwar, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/267-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
7678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).
ID No.22/2024
Ravi Kumar Sharma Co NHPC Workers Union JK Head Office Kishtwar, Jammu and Kashmir-
182206.
-------- Workman
Versus
1. The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corp. Shalimar, Kishtwar, Jammu and
Kashmir.
2. The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Ltd. Rattle HE Project,
Darabshalla, Distt. Kishtwar, UT Jammu and Kashmir.
----Respondents
Present:-
None for workman.
None for respondent no.1 & 2.
Award : 27.10.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.08(03)/2024/RLC/Jmu dated 24.09.2024, under sub-
section (5) of Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called the Act), has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
i.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving skilled
classification to workers who have their Job experience and performing the duty of skilled work and
Highly skilled classification to workers who have experience to perform the certain tasks including
work intensive technical and practical work experience to certain responsibility to its workers is legal
and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
ii.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar UT or Jammu and Kashmir for not giving Tunnel Allowance
to all workers @20% who are working inside the tunnel or associated with the tunnel/underground
work and washing allowance is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen
are entitled to and from which date?
iii.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar UT and Jammu and Kashmir for not giving Local allowances
in the shape of hardship allowance @ 20 % of Basic Wage rate increased annually as the Price index
to its workers is legal and justified? lf not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to
and from which date?
iv.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation, Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving increment @8% of
Basic Wage Rate to all workers as well as contractual employees/Engineers/Officials of the company
is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from
which date?
v.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving overtime to all
workers including mess workers depending on their actual overtime performed and other
Sundays/Holidays etc. Is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned Workmen are
entitled to and from which date?
vi.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation, Shalimar,
Kishtwas and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7679
Project, Darabshalla, district Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not implementing Central
Minimum Wages revised by Govt. of India is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
vii.
Whether the action of the Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving Night Shift
allowance to those workers deployed in Night Shift is legal and justified? lf not, then to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
viii.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kistwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE,
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving two sets of
Uniform once in a year to all its workers is legal| and justified? If not, then to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
ix.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Ratle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving Medical
Facilities/Reimbursement of medical bills to all its workers and their dependents is legal and
justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
x.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving safety Equipment's
to all its workers and not appointing Safety Officer at work place is legal and justified? If not, then to
what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
xi.
Union was advised to file EPF claim before Appropriate Authority.
xii.
The management submitted that all workers were given wages slips and union confirmed the same.
xiii.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshala District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving Earned Leave,
Casual Leave and Medical Leave to all its workers is legal and justified? If not, then' to what relief
the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
xiv.
Unions demand for not giving promotion to A categories who have completed one year of service with
good performance is not genuine as not referred for adjudication.
xv.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT or Jammu and Kashmir for not giving Transport
Facilities/Transport subsides to all those workers who are locals or who have not given
accommodation by the company and residing outside is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief
the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
xvi.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation, Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving appointment
orders to is workers as per their job specification is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
xvii.
Whether the action of The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation, Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not regularizing all
temporary/contract workers in the company who have completed one year service is legal and
justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
xviii.
Whether the action The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar;
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not granting accidental
group insurance scheme to all is workers for Accidental death or severe injuries a 30 Lacs to 60 Lacs
in case of accidental death is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen
are entitled to and from
7680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
xix.
Whether the action The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving Bonus to all its
workers is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and
from which date?
xx.
Whether the action The Chief Executive Officer, M/S Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving same wages and
similar benefit to workers engaged through Sub contractors with that of regular employees of the
company is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and
from which date?
xxi.
Whether the action The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving regular
employment to lend ousters in the joint venture/company as per R&R Policy is legal and justified? If
not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?
xxii.
The management was advised to engage local person as per their academic and professional
qualification and experience. The management agreed form same.
xxiii.
The management assured to give wages to all workers in the first week of month.
xxiv.
Whether the action The Chief Executive Officer, M/s Rattle Hydro Power Corporation Shalimar,
Kishtwar and The Chief General Manager, M/s Megha Infrastructure Engineering Limited, Rattle HE
Project, Darabshalla, District Kishtwar, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not giving winter allowance
@ Rs.2000/- per year to all its workers is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned
workmen are entitled to and from which date?”
1.
On receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the workman for 20.12.2024 for appearance and for
filing claim statement. However, no one turned up on behalf of workman on 20.12.2024 and fresh notice was
issued to the workman on 20.12.2024 for 04.03.2025. However, n notice sent to workman received back
unserved with remark ‗insufficient address‘ and fresh notice was issued on 04.03.2025 for 07.03.2025. As per
track report, notice was duly served on the address of workman on 09.05.2025. However, no one turned up on
behalf of workman on 03.07.2025 also and fresh notice was again issued for 27.10.2025 for appearance and
for filing claim statement, which was duly served on the address on 20.09.2025. However, today also no one
has turned up on behalf of workman despite of service. The workman has been given sufficient opportunities
for appearance and for filing claim statement, but he did not turned up in spite of the opportunities afforded to
him for filing claim statement, which shows that he is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.
2. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly,
'No Claim Award' is passed in the present reference.
3. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2232.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार, पररयोजना प्रबंधक, टीपीटी एनएचएअइ, प्रबंध जनदेिक, मेघा आंजीजनयररग एंड आंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर जलजमटेड और
जगदीि िमात, महासजचव, कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय-II, चंडीगढ पंचाट(संदभत सं्या- 80/2023) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/229-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7681
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2232.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The Project Manager, TPT NHAI, Managing Director, Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd.
and Sh. Jagdish Sharma, General Secretary, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/229-IR (DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).
ID No.80/2023
Jagdish Sharma, General Secretary, State Committee of CITU.
-------- Workman
Versus
1.
The Project Manager, TPT NHAI, Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway PKG XIV-3225.
2.
Managing Director, Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Regd. Office S-2, Hyderabad-500037.
----Respondents
Present:-
None for workman.
None for respondent no.1 & 2.
Award : 30.10.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.08(14)/2024/RLC/Jmu dated 22.02.2024, under sub-section (5) of
Section 12 read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of the Managing Director, M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited, S-2,
Technocrat Industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037 and the Project Manager, TPT, NHAI, Delhi-
Amritsar-Katra Expressway Kathua Expressway Pkg XIV-3225, Kathua, UT of Jammu and Kashmir for not
giving bonus to its workers is legal and justified? If not, then to what relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from which date?”
1.
The case was fixed for ex parte evidence of the workman. However, a letter dated 29.10.2025 received on
behalf of workman maintaining therein that the dispute has been mutually settled between the management and the
representatives of the workers union and it is prayed that the case may be closed as matter stands resolved to the
satisfaction of all concerned.
2.
In view of the letter of workman, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'.
Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2233.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंधक, चमेरा पावर स्ट्टेिन-III, एनएचपीसी जलजमटेड, जजला चंबा (जहमाचल प्रदेि) और स्ट्वगीय श्री दलीप
हसह, बेलदार स्ट्पेिल, धारवाला, जजला चंबा (जहमाचल प्रदेि), कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-II चंडीगढ पंचाट(संदभत सं्या 133/2024) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/272-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
7682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2233.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 133/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to The General Manager, Chamera Power Station-III, NHPC Ltd. District Chamba (HP) and Late Sh.
Daleep Singh, Beldar Special, Dharwala, District Chamba (HP).
[No. L-42025/07/2025/272-IR (DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Present:- Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding Officer).
ID No. 133/2024
1. Late Sh. Daleep Singh, Beldar Special, Employee No.183912-L, Chamera Power Station-III, NHPC
Ltd. Dharwala, District Chamba (HP), R/o Village Daryali, PO Sarol, Tehsil and District Chamba
(HP) through its LRs:-
1A.
Smt. Chanchal Devi W/o Late Sh. Daleep Singh, Beldar Special, Employee No.183912-L,
Chamera Power Station-III, NHPC Ltd. Dharwala, District Chamba (HP), R/o Village Daryali,
PO Sarol, Tehsil and District Chamba (HP)
1B.
Sh. Kartik S/o Late Sh. Daleep Singh, Beldar Special, Employee No.183912-L, Chamera Power
Station-III, NHPC Ltd. Dharwala, District Chamba (HP), R/o Village Daryali, PO Sarol, Tehsil
and District Chamba (HP).
1C.
Sh. Arun S/o Late Sh. Daleep Singh, Beldar Special, Employee No.183912-L, Chamera Power
Station-III, NHPC Ltd. Dharwala, District Chamba (HP), R/o Village Daryali, PO Sarol, Tehsil
and District Chamba (HP)
-------- Applicants
Versus
The General Manager, Chamera Power Station-III, NHPC Ltd. Dharwala, District Chamba (HP)
----Management
Present:-
Sh. T R Bhardwaj, AR for applicants.
Sh. Tarun Gupta, AR for Management.
Award : 25.11.2025
1.
Sh. Daleep Singh (hereinafter called as workman) has directly filed the claim statement against the
management under sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
called as the Act) claiming quashing of termination order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2) and his reinstatement in
service w.e.f. 16.06.2010 along with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
2.
It is added here during the present proceedings, workman Sh. Daleep Singh had expired on 09.01.2021 and his
legal heirs were allowed to be impleaded as party vide order dated 22.11.2022.
3.
It is maintained in the claim statement that workman was appointed as Beldar in Salal H.E. Project and joined
the service on 02.09.1984 and thereafter remained posted in Chamera Power Station-l, Khairi, Chamera Power
Station-II, Karian and since year 2005, he was working under Chamera Power Station III, Dharwala.
4.
Management of Chamera Power Station-III has illegally terminated the services of workman by way of struck
off his name from the roll of NHPC w.e.f. 16.06.2010 vide order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2) on the ground that
he is deemed to have left the service of the company of his own accord w.e.f. 16.06.2010 in terms of Rule
3.2.17 of NHPC Leaves Rules. The termination order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2), was received in his home on
19.06.2014.
5.
Against the illegal termination, workman filed Industrial Dispute in the office of Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central)-Cum-Conciliation Officer, Chandigarh (hereinafter called as ALC, Chandigarh) vide
Demand Notice Dated 16.09.2014 (Ex.W3) on which conciliation proceedings were held but no settlement
could be arrived at and mandatory period of 45 days of filing the dispute before conciliation officer as
provided under Section 2A(2) of the Act has been completed on 16.11.2014 and certificate to this effect has
been issued by the ALC Chandigarh on 16.12.2014.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7683
6.
It is also maintained that absence of workman from duty is not intentional but was under compelling
circumstances which was beyond the control of workman as he was suffering with Schizophrenia disease since
long time and was getting medical treatment from Rajpal Hospital Neuro-Psychiatric and Addiction Hospital,
Pathankot from 15.06.2010 to 13.05.2014, which is evident from medical certificate dated 13.05.2014 (Ex.W4)
issued by the Treating Doctor Kanwar Rajpal Singh Neuro Psychiatrist.
7.
Prior to 15.06.2010, he was getting treatment of same disease from the said Doctor from the year 2008 and
onward. On 15.06.2010 when he was on duty, he felt seriously ill and then family Members shifted him to
Pathankot for seeking medical treatment and he remained under prolonged medical treatment till 13.05.2014.
8.
In the second/third week of April 2014, there was some slight improvement in his health, then he along-with
his wife went to HR wing of Chamera Power Station-III and approached to the then Senior Manager (HR) to
accept his joining report but the senior manager (HR) told him that the management is not in a position to
accept his joining report as matter has been referred to Corporate Office and senior manager (HR) advised him
and his wife to sent his representation to the Director (Personnel) and if he so desired to meet him in person in
this regard. Accordingly the workman made one representation (Annexure P-5) to the Director (Personnel) and
the copy of the same was endorsed to the Executive Director (HR) NHPC Ltd. which was sent through Fax by
HR Wing of the Power Station and on 22.04.2014 and 06.05.2014, the workman along with his wife and
General Secretary of NHPC employees Union, Corporate Office met with General Manager (HR) and Director
(Personnel) separately at Faridabad office and explained each about his genuine illness/disease and handed
over a copy of aforesaid representation to them and also requested them to allow him to resume his duties but
there no effect. He was simply told to go to the local project management and approach him for joining at his
own level.
9.
On 14.05.2014 (Ex.W6), the workman submitted his joining report to the Sr. Manager (HR), Chamera Power
Station-III along with a copy of medical certificate dated 13.05.2014 (Ex.W4) but he returned the same to the
workman and told that since the department has issued termination order from service on 09.05.2014 as such
his joining report cannot be accepted.
10.
The workman also sent various telegrams (Ex.W7) dated 08.06.2010, 20.10.2010, 15.02.2011, 06.05.2011,
01.09.2011, 21.10.2011, 29.12.2011, 23.03.2012, 21.05-2012, 12.07.2012 and thereafter his wife gave
information to the then Sr. Manager (HR) on telephone every month about his ill health.
11.
Before passing termination order, management was to serve charge sheet upon the workman and hold inquiry
but in the present case neither management served any charge sheet nor held any enquiry. No opportunity of
personal hearing was afforded to the workman before passing termination order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2).
12.
There is a settled law that illegal termination of service amount to retrenchment and management have to
comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act but in the present case Management has not issued one
month notice in writing nor paid one month wages in lieu of notice period and has also not been paid any
retrenchment compensation to the workman.
13.
Management has not been adhered the procedure laid down in Clause 34 of Certified Standing Orders before
passing final order of termination of services. Because the services of the workman is governed by Certified
Standing Orders of the Chamera Power Station-III/Chamera H.E, Project Stage-III, as Such the action of
management in terminating his services is illegal and clear cut violation of Certified Standing Orders and
instructions issued by the Corporate office vide letter dated 21.09.1993 (Ex.W12).
14.
The action of management in striking of the name of the workman from the role of the corporation w.e.f.
16.06.2010 vide order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2) on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty is also
arbitrary and unjustified. The workman is unemployed and nowhere gainfully employed since the date of his
termination and having no other source of income. The workman made a representation dated 09.07.2014
(Ex.W8) to the management with the request to review order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2), but the same was
rejected by the Manager (M), Incharge HR by way of passing non speaking order dated 12.08.2014 (Ex.W9). It
is maintained that the action of management in terminating the service is illegal and against the principle of
natural justice and it is prayed that the termination order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2) be quashed and workman
be reinstated in service w.e.f. 16.06.2010 along with full back wages and all consequential benefits.
15.
Notice of the claim petition was given to the management, who filed reply thereof maintaining therein that the
workman is a habitual absentee and has remained absent from duties unauthorizedly as specified in the notice.
He was absent from the duty continuously w.e.f. 16.06.2010. The workman did not respond to any of the
notices issued from time to time and explain the circumstances with proof about the absence nor he cared to
join duty. For this long period of absence his name was struck off from the rolls of the corporation as he was
deemed to have left the services of the company on his own accord. As such strucking off name of the
workman from the roll is not termination as alleged by him, therefore, it is not an industrial dispute. The
workman did not resume his duties, which is the prime responsibility of the bonafied employees of the
corporation.
7684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16.
The workman was advised time and again by the management to submit his prescriptions of treatment so that
the period of absence without permission may be considered for regularization within rules. In this connection,
various correspondences were made with the workman vide various letters dated 25.06.2011 (Ex.M-3),
21.09.2011 (Ex.M-1) and 31.12.2011 (Ex.M-2) to submit the documentary proof. These letters addressed to
the workman were returned back with remarks that no one was available at home of the workman to receive
the letter. The workman kept on sending telegrams that he is not well and he will resume duties after fitness.
Since the communications sent to the workman at his last known address were received bank unserved, the
management gave public notice through publication in two regional newspapers both Hindi and English on
11.07.2012 (Ex.M-4) with the direction to resume duty within 07 days of publication notice i.e. by 18.07.2012
but the workman failed to resume duty. Thereafter, again public notice in local and national newspapers, both
in Hindi and English were published on 01.02.2014 and also on 07.04.2014 (Ex.M-5) directing him to report
for duty by 22.04.2014, failing which he shall be deemed to have left the services of the management on his
own accord and his name will be struck off from the roll of NHPC from the date of his absence in accordance
with Rule 3.2.17 of NHPC Leave Rules. Despite several efforts made by the management, the workman failed
to respond to the either of the publications.
17.
The workman submitted a medical certificate issued on 13.05.2014 (Ex.W4) by the doctor namely Dr. Kanwar
Rajpal Singh, Neuro Psychiatric, Pathankot without any supporting documents like prescription etc. after the
long span of 4 years of absence, which shows it is totally fabricated documentary evidence with ulterior
motive. Mere certificate is not sufficient to prove that he was suffering from prolonged illness of
Schizophrenia disease as workman has not submitted any prescription/documents regarding treatment since
2010 to 2014 for the reasons best known to the workman. In absence of any documents, it is impossible to
presume that the workman is suffering from any illness or undergoing treatment. Non submission of
documentary proof by the workman is violation of Rules and the Certified Standing Orders of Chamera-III
Power Station. It is admitted that Standing Orders, which have been certified under the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 become part of the statutory terms and conditions of service between the
employer and employee govern the relationship between the parties. But there is no provision either in this
statute or in the Act which states that an order of dismissal is illegal if it is not preceded by a proper and valid
domestic enquiry. The workman has fabricated the story, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is
maintained that the claim of the workman is baseless, without any merit and deserves to be dismissed
with cost.
Evidence of parties:-
18.
In order to prove claim, the workman examined himself as WW1 who filed his affidavit Ex.W1 along with
documents W2 to W17 and cross examined by the AR for management. AR for claimant closed the evidence
on behalf of claimant on 16.08.2018. Workman in his evidence has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No.
Document
Date
Exhibit
1.
Termination order
09.05.2014
Ex.W2
2.
Demand notice
16.09.2014
Ex.W3
3.
Medical certificate
13.05.2014
Ex.W4
4.
Letter
Ex.W5
5.
Letter
14.05.2014
Ex.W6
6.
Telegrams receipts
Ex.W7
7.
Representation
09.07.2014
Ex.W8
8.
Order
12.08.2014
Ex.W9
9.
Publication
20.03.2014
Ex.W10
10.
Certified standing order
Ex.W11
11.
Letter
21.09.1993
Ex.W12
12.
Medical certificate
05.04.2008
Ex.W13
13.
Medical certificate
05.04.2008
Ex.W14
14.
Medical certificate
15.07.2009
Ex.W15
15.
Medical certificate
22.11.2009
Ex.W16
16.
Medical certificate
26.01.2010
Ex.W17
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7685
19.
Thereafter, respondents have examined Sh. Sunil Kumar Singh, Group Sr. Manager (HR), Emp No.102497Y,
Chamera-III Power Station, Dharwala, Distt. Chamba (HP), who filed his affidavit as Ex.MW1/A along with
documents Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-8 and MW1/B and MW1/C. AR for respondent closed the evidence on behalf of
management on 19.06.2023. Respondents in their evidence has relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No.
Document
Date
Exhibit
17.
Letter
21.09.2011
Ex.M-1
18.
Letter
31.12.2011
Ex.M-2
19.
Memorandum
25.06.2011
Ex.M-3
20.
Publication
11.07.2012
Ex.M-4
21.
Notice
31.01.2014
Ex.M-5
22.
Publication
Ex.M-6
23.
Leave Rules
Ex.M-7
24.
Notice
09.05.2014
Ex.M-8
25.
Group
Personal
Accident
Insurance Scheme
Ex.MW1/B
26.
NHPC Employees Social Security
Scheme Rules 2006
Ex.MW1/C
Submissions of Applicants:-
20.
While arguing the case, AR for workman contended that the workman has joined as Beldar in Salal Hydro
Electric Project under the respondent and lastly was working under respondent no.1 at Chamera and was
removed from service illegally on vide order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2). It is further stated that workman was
getting treatment of Schizophrenia from Dr. Rajpal from 15.06.2010 till 13.05.2014 as OPD patient as per
medical certificate dated 13.05.2014 (Ex.W4) issued by the said doctor. It is also stated that the workman has
sent various telegrams 08.06.2010, 20.10.2010, 15.02.2011, 06.05.2011, 01.09.2011, 21.10.2011, 29.12.2011,
23.03.2012, 21.05-2012, 12.07.2012, receipts thereof are Ex.W/7 to the respondent. The workman was under
acute mental depression as such he cannot be said to be remained unauthorized absent. Therefore, respondent
without holding any inquiry, terminated the services of the workman vide order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2). He
further contended that workman is governed by the certified standing orders (Ex.W11). As per clause 32
provides minor and major penalty, which could have been intricate on the workman after holding domestic
inquiry as per law. Clause 34 of the said standing order provides procedure how disciplinary action is to be
taken against the workman the detailed procedure has been prescribed under Clause 34. As per said clause 34,
no minor or major penalty can be imposed without holding any regular inquiry. For that, regular inquiry is
necessitated, which was not done in this. Moreover, as per Ex.W12 issued by the project head, even if
workman remains absent, he could not have been removed from service without holding inquiry and thus order
is liable to be set aside.
Submissions of respondents:
21.
On the other hand, AR for respondent contended that workman become absent unauthorizedly and
continuously w.e.f. 16.06.2010. The workman was asked to submit documentary proof vide Ex.M-1 dated
21.09.2011, Ex.M-2 dated 31.12.2011 and Ex.M-3 dated 25.06.2011 and thereafter public notice was also
given to the workman vide Ex.M-4 dated 11.07.2012 and Ex.M-5 dated 31.01.2014 through publication in
newspaper and thereafter his name was struck off as per Para 3.2.17 of Leave Rule (Ex.M7), which provides as
follows:-
3.2.17. If an employee willfully absents himself from duty for more than ten consecutive
days without any intimation, a notice shall be issued to him, directing him to report for
duty forthwith and in any case not beyond eight days after the issue of the notice. If he does
not resume duty within such period the employee shall be deemed to have left the service of
the Corporation of his own accord and his name shall be struck off the rolls of the
Corporation with effect from the date of such absence.
22.
The workman was untraceable during this period and was thus accordingly removed from service as per Rules.
He thus contended that the claim petition be dismissed.
23.
I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by AR for both the parties.
7686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
24.
It is added here that in this case, admittedly, workman had remained absent for the period 15.06.2010 to
13.05.2014 and as per workman, he sent various telegrams (Ex.W7) (10 in number) to the respondent.
However, as per respondents, workman was asked to submit documentary proof vide Ex.M-1 dated
21.09.2011, Ex.M-2 dated 31.12.2011 and Ex.M-3 dated 25.06.2011 and thereafter public notice was also
given to the workman vide Ex.M-4 dated 11.07.2012 and Ex.M-5 dated 31.01.2014 through publication in
newspaper and therefore his name was struck off as per Para 3.2.17 of Leave Rule (Ex.M7). In this regard, it is
pertinent to mention here that so far as sending of letters Ex.M-1 dated 21.09.2011, Ex.M-2 dated 31.12.2011
and Ex.M-3 dated 25.06.2011 are concerned, they have admittedly been received back by respondent as
undelivered and admittedly all the telegrams have been received by the respondent and thus respondent was
required to sent notices on the addresses from which various telegrams were received, which was admittedly
not done by the respondent. The respondents have sent the notices on the last known address of the workman.
Thus, in this way notice cannot of any help of the respondents.
25.
Moreover, it is not disputed that workman was governed by certified standing orders and in this case, name of
the workman has been struck of from the role NHPC vide notice dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2) without holding
any regular inquiry. In this regard, clause 34 of standing orders is very material and relevant part of standing
orders is reproduced as under:-
34. Disciplinary Action:-
No order imposing any of the penalties specified under S.O. No.32 shall be made unless the
procedure detailed below is adhered to:-
1) The workman/employee alleged to have committed the misconduct shall be served a
chargesheet, clearly setting for the imputation of misconduct and circumstances appearing
against him and requiring explanation. The charge sheet shall be issued by appointing
authority or disciplinary authority or any other higher authority as authorized by the
management.
2) ---
--
--
---
---
3) ---
--
--
---
---
4) Management Shall appoint a person (called presenting officer) to appear before the Enquiry
Officer and conduct the proceedings on behalf of the management, for presenting evidence,
record, witness, examination of witnesses.
5) ---
--
--
---
---
6) ---
--
--
---
---
7) ---
--
--
---
---
13) the inquiry officer shall on conclusion of the enquiry, submit his report in writing giving his
findings with reasons thereof to the authority which appointed the inquiry officer and a copy of the
proceedings is to be supplied to the concerned workman.
14) ---
--
--
---
---
15) ---
--
--
---
---
26.
It is added here that removal from service was a major penalty as per clause 32 of the certified standing orders
and name of the workman has been struck of without holding any regular inquiry as per clause 34 of the
certified standing orders and thus order dated 09.05.2014 (Ex.W2) is liable to be set aside.
27.
So far as struck of the name of the workman as per para 3.2.17 of Leave Rules Ex.M7 is concerned, in this
regard, letter (Ex.W12) was issued by the respondent. In para no.3 of the W12, it is mentioned by the
respondent that in view of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the certified standing orders have
statutory force and principle of natural justice should be followed in every case while acting on these certified
standing orders. Moreover, AR for respondents made following statement:-
Stated that the NHPC Leave Rules are made by the Board of Directors in accordance with standing orders.
They are not statutory in nature.
28.
Thus Leave Rule, 3.2.17 having no force of law and cannot be relied upon and thus workman is liable to be
reinstated into services when no domestic inquiry was held. Moreover, there was no compliance of the
provisions of the Act prior to termination of services of the workman.
29.
In view of the discussions, absence of workman from 15.06.2010 to 13.05.2014 would be treated as leave of
kind dues and the order dated 09.05.2014 is set aside. The workman is entitled to reinstatement in service with
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7687
all consequential benefits. Since, the workman has expired on 09.01.2021, his legal heirs would be entitled for
all benefits.
30.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2234.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार, महाप्रबंधक बीएसएनएल, टेलीफोन एक्सचेंज, फरीदाबाद और श्री रामफल, मकेंटाआल एम्प्लॉइ एसोजसएिन,
फरीदाबाद के महासजचव, कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह-
श्रम न्यायालय-II चंडीगढ पंचाट (संदभत सं्या 307/2013) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 40011/67/2013-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2234.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 307/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court – II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to General Manager, BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Faridabaad and Sh. Ramphal, General Secretary,
Mercantile Employees Association, Faridabad, workman.
[No. L-40011/67/2013-IR (DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
(Presided over by Mr. Kamal Kant).
ID No.307/2013
Registered on : 19.12.2013
Ramphal S/o Sh. Ratan Singh, C/o Sh. Hoob Lal Yadav, General Secretary, Mercantile Employees Association, 530-
Near Prem Public School, Dayal Nagar, PO Amar Nagar, Faridabad, Haryana-121007.
-------- Workman
Versus
General Manager, BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Sector 15A, Faridabad-121007
----Management
Present:-
Ms. Rumpa Ghorai, AR for workman.
Sh. Anish Babbar, AR for management.
Award : 19.11.2025
Central Government vide Notification No.L-40011/67/2013-IR(DU) dated 29.10.2013, under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act),
has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
“Whether the action of management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), Faridabad Haryana in
terminating the services of Shri Ramphal S/o Sh. Ratan Singh, Ex-Linnman w.e.f. 09.06.2012 is legal and
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date?”
7688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1.
AR for workman on 06.03.2025 stated that the workman had expired and requested a date for filing
appropriate application for impleading LRs of the deceased workman. However today, AR for workman vide her
separate statement stated that she has contacted the LRS of workman and they have not shown interest in pursuing the
case. Thus, it is presumed that the LRs of deceased workman are not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit
2.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly,
'No Claim Award' is passed in the present reference.
3.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2235.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
महाप्रबंधक, एसइसीएल, छत्तीसगढ और सजचव, भारतीय जवकास ेका मजदूर संघ, कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभत सं्या- 22/2019) को जजसा दक
ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42011/167/2018-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2235.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The General Manager, SECL , Chhatisgarh and The Secretary, Bhartiya Vikas Theka Mazdoor Union,
workman.
[No. L-42011/167/2018-IR (DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/22/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
The Secretary,
Bhartiya Vikas Theka Mazdoor Union,
Add- Shivraj Hotel, Hounse No. 301,
Near Material Gate,NTPC, Seepat,
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)- 495001
Workman
Vs
The General Manager,
SECL, Central Workshop Korba Area,
Po-Korba Colliery,
Korba (Chhatisgarh)- 495450
Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7689
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 16th day of October, 2025)
As per letter dated 11/01/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per
Notification No. L-42011/167/2018 (IR(DU)) dt. 11/01/2019. The dispute under reference relates to:
―Whether the action on the part of the management of SECL, Central Workshop, Korba (Chhattisgarh) in
inflicting harsh punishment upon Sh. Raja Ram Kashtriya, Ex-clerk Grade-II by removing from service instead of
giving lesser punishment on absenteeism ground is appropriate and justified? If not, what relief, Sh. Raja Ram
Kashtriya espoused by the Secretary, Bhartiya Vikas theka mazdoor union are 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.
The case of the workman is mainly that while he was working as Clerk Grade-II with the management and
was posted in Laxman Project, he was issued a charge sheet with respect to his unauthorized absence in the year 1997
and was terminated from the services. He was reinstated by management allowing his appeal and was transferred to
Central Workshop. He was issued another charge sheet on 31.07.1999, with an allegation of unauthorized and wilful
absence from work w.e.f., 02.06.1999 till date of charge sheet. Infact, he could not report at work place for this period
of 11/2 months due to illness of his father. He could not inform the management about his absence due to urgency, he
filed a reply to the charge sheet admitting the charges and assured that he will not repeat it. The management
terminated his service vide order dated 06.02.2001, he came to know about this order only on 22.05.2004 when he got
the notice of management to vacate the accommodation allotted to him by management as he was terminated from
service. He raised the dispute. After failure of conciliation, dispute was referred to this Tribunal.
According to the workman, infact, he had not admitted the charges rather he had explained his absence,
which was wrongly taken by management as his admission to the charges. The management thus, acted arbitrarily
treating his explanation as his admission of guilt and the punishment is also hash.
The case of the management is mainly that the services of the workman were dismissed vide order dated
06.02.2001. The present dispute has been raised in the year 2019, there is an unexplained delay of 18 years since, the
records are old, they are no traceable with the management, the workman was habitual absentee. He was awarded
previous punishments also for his unauthorized absence. He was once dismissed for his unauthorized absence but was
reinstated allowing his mercy petition but he did not improve and absented himself unauthorizedly, an enquiry was
conducted with respect to the charges of misconduct by way of absenting himself unauthorizedly from 02.06.1999 to
31.07.1999. After management received no satisfactory reply to the charge sheet in the enquiry, the workman
participated, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report holding the charges proved. The workman was issued a
show cause notice on the enquiry report and thereafter the termination order dated 06.02.2001 was passed.
The enquiry papers were never produced before this Tribunal. According to management, they have weeded
out as per Rules. Before this Tribunal, the workman has filed his affidavit as his Examination-in-chief, he has been
cross-examined by management. The management did not examined any witnesses before this Tribunal also in proof
of the charges.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Pranay Choubey and Mr. Neeraj Kewat,
Learned Counsel for Management. I have gone through the record as well.
The facts which emerge from the evidence on record, that according to the management, an enquiry was
conducted with respect to charges, the enquiry papers or any document with respect to enquiry have not been
produced by management.
Case of the workman is that, no intimation was sent to him with respect to enquiry. The management had
an opportunity to prove the charges before this Tribunal.
In his affidavit, the workman has stated that he communicated his apologies to management to the charges
which were wrongly treated as admission and he was terminated on the said basis, he admits that earlier also he was
terminated for the same misconduct but was reinstated as an act of mercy.
The absence of workman is not denied by him. It is also not his case that he had informed the management
about his absence or had applied for leave or had taken any permission from management in this respect. The absence
is of about two months, the workman was required to at least inform the management about his absence stating the
ground of his absence. Since, he did not inform the management, with respect to his absence and did not seek any
regularization of his absence, his conduct is no doubt a misconduct by way of unauthorized absence.
As regards the punishment, this is also not disputed that the workman has been punished earlier also for the
same charges. Hence, since he is a habitual offender, the punishment of his removal cannot be held to be
disproportionate to the charges.
7690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
This is also established that the workman has raised dispute against termination of his services after 18 years,
there is no explanation for this delay. In these circumstances, the workman is held entitled to no relief.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference deserves to be answered as follows:-
AWARD
Holding the action of the management of SECL, Central Workshop, Korba (Chhattisgarh) for dismissing
Sh. Raja Ram Kashtriya, Ex-clerk Grade-II from services instead of giving lesser punishment on absenteeism
ground, following Principles of Natural Justice is held to be legal and justified, he is entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 16-10-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2236.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार, रजजस्ट्रार, भारतीय प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान, डीएवीवी पररसर, आंदौर, मेससत काप्रो मजनेजमेंट सॉल्यूिंस प्राआवेट
जलजमटेड, आंदौर, मेससत प्राआमवन वकतफोसत प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, आंदौर और श्री बलराम चौहान, कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में
जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभत सं्या-09/2020) को जजसा दक
ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/266-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2236.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in Registrar,
Indian Institute of Technology, DAVV Campus, Indore, M/s Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Indore,
M/s PrimeOne Workforce Pvt. Ltd, Indore and Shri Balram Chouhan, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/266-IR (DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/09/2020
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Balram Chouhan,
S/o Hazarilal Chouhan,
242, Bicholi Hapsi,
Indore (M.P.)
Workman
Versues
1. Registrar,
Indian Institute of Technology,
DAVV Campus, Khandwa Road,
Indore (MP) – 452017
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7691
2. M/s Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
201, Royal Diamond, Y.N. Road,
Indore (M.P.) – 452003
3. M/s PrimeOne Workforce Pvt. Ltd.,
R-47, Zone-II, M.P. Nagar,
Bhopal (M.P.) - 462011
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 17th day of October - 2025)
As per letter dated 03/02/2020 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. J-
1(1-3)/2020-IR dt. 03/02/2020. The dispute under reference relates to:
―Whether the action of the management of M/s.PrimeOne Workforce Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kaapro
Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of workman Shri Balram Chouhan working
in the establishment of Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Indore (M.P.) wef. 16.02.2018 and
28.04.2016 respectively, are just & proper? If yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and
from which date?‖
Thereafter, corrigendum dated 22.07.2022 was received containing amended reference which is as follows:
"Whether the action of the management of the Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Indore
(M.P.) / M/s.PrimeOne Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of
workman Shri Balram Chouhan working in the establishment of Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Indore
(M.P.) w.e.f. 16.02.2018 and 28.04.2016 respectively, are just and Proper? If yes, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to and from which date?
Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and
defense.
The workman appeared and filed his statement of claim with copy of his appointment order, pay slip,
dismissal order.
IIT also appeared through their counsel. But did not file any written statement of defense.
The Outsourcing Agency M/s Kaapro Industries and M/s Prime One Workforce did not appear inspite of
service of notice, hence reference proceeded ex-parte against them.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. None appeared for cross-
examination. He also filed photocopy of his appointment letter, pay slip and dismissal order.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Pranay Choubey. None appeared for
Management. I have gone through the record as well.
The amended reference is the issued for determination in the case in hand.
Case of the Workman is mainly that, IIT has issued an advertisement for Drivers, cleaners etc. by way of
walk in interview. He appeared and was selected for cleaner. It was nowhere provided in the advertisement that he
will be appointed through a private contractor. There was no role of a private contractor or outsourcing agency in his
recruitment process as it was done by the IIT themselves. He was shown as outsourced employee of contractors
supplied by them to IIT which is incorrect in fact, and is a camouflage adopted by Management of IIT just to deprive
him of his admissible rights and benefits under the law. .
He was disengaged by the outsourcing company M/s Prime One Workforce on 15.02.2018 without any
notice or compensation which is against law. He has sought his reinstatement with back wages and benefits as an
employee of IIT.
In evidence, he has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief and also has filed photocopy of letter
extending his work contract, experience certificates, and dismissal order.
Though, he has corroborated his allegations in his statement of claim, but the documents filed by him speak
against his case. Letter of extension of his service contract dated 10.12.2014 is issued by the Outsourcing agency
M/s Kaapro Management. It shows that his service contract was extended further from 11.12.2014 to 10.09.2015 on
7692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
previous conditions. Letter dated 27.04.2017 is an another extension letter issued by M/s Prime One Workforce
extending his work contract from 16.04.2017 to 15.04.2018 and letter dated 28.04.2016 is the letter issued by
Outsourcing Agencies M/s Kaapro Management Solutions disengaging him on expiry of his service contract. Letter
dated 15.02.2018 issued by M/s Prime One Workforce Outsourcing Agency has discontinued all his engagement by
none extension of service contract.
Hence, except his serving statement, there is nothing on record to show that the Workman was further
employed by IIT and the Outsourcing Agency was a camouflage. It also comes out that, he was appointed by different
agencies on contract basis and was discontinued on expiry of contract which is not a retrenchment as defined under
Section 2(oo) of the Act which is being reproduced as follows:-
2 (oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include –
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment
between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of
employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract
being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;
Also from evidence on record there is no employee employer relationship between him and the IIT is
proved.
In the light of above findings, the reference deserves to be answered against the Workman and is
answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 17/10/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2237.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंधक (ओ एंड एम) एनटीपीसी जबलासपुर, मेससत यूरटजलटी पॉवरटेक जलजमटेड, जबलासपुर, सुश्री इश्वर
प्रताप हसह एसोजसएर्टस बेलौजी, मध्य प्रदेि और श्री राधािरण वज्णव, कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभत सं्या- 68/2024) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में
ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/268-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2237.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The General Manager (O&M) NTPC Bilaspur, M/s. Utility Powertech Limited, Bilaspur., Ms Ishwar Pratap
Singh Associates Belauji, Madhya Pradesh and Sh. Radhasharan Vaishnaw, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/268-IR (DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/68/2024
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
Radhasharan Vaishnaw
Gupta Mohalla Sipat
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495555
Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7693
Versus
1. The General Manager (O&M)
NTPC Sipat, Ujjwal Nagar, PO- Sipat
Bilaspur (CG)-495555
2. M/s. Utility Powertech Limited
Near ADM Gate, Infront of Water Tank
Inside NTPC Ltd. Plant Campus,
Ujjwal Nagar, PO- Sipat
Bilaspur (CG)-495555
3. Ms Ishwar Pratap Singh Associates
Belauji, Near Dairy Farm Waidhan
Singrauli, Madhya Pradesh-486886
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 14th day of October - 2025.)
As per letter dated 14/08/2024 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 Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 as per reference number RP-8(1-12)/2024-ES.III dt. 14/08/2024. The dispute under reference related to :-
―Whether the action on the part of the management of M/s. Ishwar Pratap Singh Associates, Waidhan,
Dist. Singrauli (MP) in terminating workman Shri Radhasharan Viashwnaw, Supervisor working in
NTPC, Sipat, Dist. Bilaspur (CG) is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?‖
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: 14/10/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2238.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
भारतीय प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान, जभलाइ के जनदेिक, जसक्योररटी एलाआड सर्णवसेज प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, रायपुर के प्रधान और
ऄजखल भारतीय केंरीय रेड यूजनयन पररषद, छत्तीसगढ के ईपाध्यक्ष,कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभत सं्या- 33/2025) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/269-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2238.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The
Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Bhilai; Principal Security Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., Raipur and Vice
President, All India Central Council of Trade Unions, Chhattisgarh, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/269-IR (DU]
SALONI, Dy. Director
7694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/33/2025
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
Vice President
All India Central Council of Trade Unions
Shanti Nagar Ward No. 10, Ambedkar Chowk
Rajnandgaon, Chhhattisgarh - 491441
Workman
Versus
1. The Director
Indian Institute of Technology, Bhilai
Kohka, Jeora, Sirsa Road, Bhilai
Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG)-491001
2. Principal Security Allied Services Pvt. Ltd.
Pandri, Near Govt. Hospital, Raipur
District Raipur (CG) - 492001
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 09th day of October - 2025.)
As per letter dated 01/01/2025 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 (3-23) /2024-ES.III-ID dt. 01/01/2025. The dispute under reference related to :-
―Whether the demand of the workman for lumpsum relief compensation of Rupees One Lakh only (01
lacs only) 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. The
workman side never appeared. They did not file even any statement of claim. None of the parties filed any pleadings
or evidence.
Since, the initial burden to prove its case is on the workman side in which he fails. Hence, holding the
claim of the workman not proved, the reference stands answered against him.
DATE: 09/10/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2239.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार भारतीय प्रौद्योजगकी संस्ट्थान, आंदौर के रजजस्ट्रार, मेससत काप्रो मजनेजमेंट सॉल्यूिंस प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, आंदौर, मेससत
प्राआमवन वकतफोसत प्राआवेट जलजमटेड, भोपाल और श्री मुकुंद िमात, कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट(संदभत सं्या- 02/2020) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/270-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7695
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2239.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 02/2020) 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
Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Indore, M/s Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Indore
M/s Primeone Workforce Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal and Shri Mukund Sharma, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/270-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/02/2020
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Mukund Sharma,
Karuna Sagar Township, Block No. C,
Flat No. 514, Kanadia Road Bypass,
Indore (M.P.) - 452002
Workman
Versues
1. Registrar,
Indian Institute of Technology,
DAVV Campus, Khandwa Road,
Indore (MP) – 452017
2. M/s Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,
201, Royal Diamond, Y.N. Road,
Indore (M.P.) – 452003
3. M/s PrimeOne Workforce Pvt. Ltd.,
R-47, Zone-II, M.P. Nagar,
Bhopal (M.P.) - 462011
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 17th day of October - 2025)
As per letter dated 10/01/2020 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. J-1(1-2)/2020-IR dt. 10/01/2020. The dispute under reference relates to:
―Whether the action of the management of M/s.PrimeOne Workforce Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Kaapro
Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of workman Shri Mukund Sharma working in
the establishment of Registrar, Indian Institute of Technology, Indore (M.P.) w.e.f. 16.02.2018 and
11.02.2016 respectively, are just & proper? If yes, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and
from which date?‖
Thereafter, corrigendum dated 22.07.2022 was received containing amended reference which is as follows:
"Whether the action of the management of the Registrar. Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Indore
(M.P.)/ M/s.PrimeOne Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of
7696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman Shri Mukund Sharma working in the establishment of Registrar. Indian Institute of Technology, Indore
(M.P.) w.e.f. 16.02.2018 and 11.02.2016 respectively, are just and proper? If yes, what relief the workman
concerned is entitled to and from which date?"
Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared and filed their respective statement of claim and
defense.
The workman appeared and filed his statement of claim with copy of his appointment order, pay slip,
dismissal order.
IIT also appeared through their counsel. But did not file any written statement of defense.
The Outsourcing Agency M/s Kaapro Industries and M/s Prime One Workforce did not appear inspite
of service of notice; hence reference proceeded ex-parte against them.
In evidence, the workman filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. None appeared for cross-
examination. He also filed photocopy of his appointment letter, pay slip and dismissal order.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Pranay Choubey. None appeared for
Management. I have gone through the record as well.
The amended reference is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
Case of the Workman as taken by him in his statement of claim is mainly that, he was appointed by IIT as a
Driver on 19.05.2011 at consolidated salary and continued to work as a Driver till date of dismissal of his services
which is 15.02.2018. It is then, he came to known that his services have been shown through outsourcing agencies
M/s Prime One Workforce which is incorrect on facts. In fact, he was appointed by IIT and continued to work for IIT
as their employee. The Contractor or Outsourcing agency was simply a camouflage to deprive him the admissible
benefits under law. He has further alleged that, his termination is bad in law and has requested his reinstatement as an
employee of IIT with back wages and benefits.
In his affidavit he has corroborated his allegations.
His appointment letter dated 19.05.2011, photocopy on record, filed by him, shows that it was for this month
only and at consolidated pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month and for six months. Thus it was a fixed term appointment.
There is nothing on record to show that this service contract was extended by IIT. The case of the Workman is further
that, he was shown to be an outsourced employee, which is a camouflage as required to be proved by him, in which
he has failed.
The established facts that emerge are that, after his contract with IIT came to end, he would have been
engaged through Outsourcing Agencies. Hence, there is no employee-employer relationship between him and IIT at
the time he was disengaged by the Outsourcing Agency M/s Prime One. Hence, IIT cannot be fastened with any
liability to reinstate or to compensate him.
Since, his statement that he has worked for 240 days in a year and since 2016, in which he has been shown
as outsourced employee has been uncontroverted, hence he is held to have been proved his continuous engagement
with the outsourcing agency M/s Prime One for more than 240 days at least in the year preceding his disengagement
since his case that no notice or compensation was paid to him on his termination, his termination is held in violation
of Section 25 F and 25G of the Act.
As regards to the relief, keeping in view his tenure of engagement with the outsourcing agency M/s
Prime One, he is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of all his claims payable to
him within 30 days from the date of publication of Award, failing which interest @6% per annum till payment.
Reference stands answered accordingly.
DATE:- 17/10/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2240.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार बीएचइएल, भोपाल के कायतकारी जनदेिक और ेका मजदूर संघ के ऄध्यक्ष, कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभत सं्या- 14/2025) को जजसा दक
ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42025/07/2025/271-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7697
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2240.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2025) 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
The Executive Director BHEL, Bhopal and President Theka Majdoor Sangh, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/271-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/14/2025
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
President
Theka Majdoor Sangh
LIG-27/3 C, Saket Nagar, BHEL,
Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462022
Workman
Versus
The Executive Director
BHEL, Bhopal
Bhopal (M.P.)-462022
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 09th day of October - 2025.)
As per letter dated 23/12/2024 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur, 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 RLC-8(16)2023 dt. 23/12/2024. The dispute under reference related to :-
―Whether the 05 points charter of demands raised by the union Theka Mazdoor Sangh against the
management of BHEL, Bhopal is fair and legal ? If yes, then what relief the contract workmen are
entitled to and from which date‖
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. Learned
Counsel Mr. Dharmendra Soni filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Management. None of the parties filed any
Statement of Claim and Written Statement of Defense. The workman union side never appeared.
Since, the initial burden to prove its case is on the workman union side, in which it has failed to
discharge. Hence, holding the claim of the workman union not proved, the reference stands answered
against it.
DATE: 09/10/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2241.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केंर
सरकार, महाप्रबंधक अयुध कारखाना, जबलपुर और महासजचव, ऄजग्निमन जवभाग कमतचारी संघ, जबलपुर कमतचारी के
बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभत
सं्या- 42/2021) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 14011/7/2021-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
7698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2241.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur and The General Secretary Fire Brigade Karmachari
Sangh, Jabalpur workman.
[No. L-14011/7/2021-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
The General Secretary
Fire Brigade Karmachari Sangh
1595, Dr. Ambedkar Colony,
In front of Shiv Temple, Nearby Dr. Sahu Ji
Katra, Adhartal, Jabalpur - 482004
Workman
Versus
The General Manager
Ordnance Factory, Khamaria,
Jabalpur - 482005
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 12th day of September-2025.)
As per letter dated 01/09/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per reference number
L-14011/7/2021/IR(DU) dt. 01/09/2021. The dispute under reference related to :-
―Whether the demand raised by Fire Brigade Karmachari Sangh, Jabalpur (M.P.) against the
management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur to give 40 hours duty instead of 48 hours in a
week and to give 5 days duty instead of 06 days to fire brigade section employees as per Ordnance Factory
Board Letter No. 525/D/A/A(Pt)/V dated 13.05.1988, is proper, legal and justified ? If yes, to what relief
the fire brigade section employees are entitled to ? What other directions, if any, are necessary in
the matter ?‖
After registering the case on the basis of the reference received, notices were sent to the parties and were
duly served on them. They appeared and filed their respective statements of claim and defense.
In short, the case of the workman union is that the members of the union who are Fire Brigade Employees
work with the management in their factory, the Defense Ordnance Factory Board issued a Circular No.
525/D/A/A(pt)/V dated 13.05.1988 for fixation of duty hours for grant of overtime allowances to four categories of its
employees namely viz; Durbans, Fire Brigade Staff, Telephone Operators and Security Assistant, which provided that
the these workmen shall qualify for overtime allowances for the work done above 44.15 hours which was earlier 48
hours a week. Case of the workman union is further that the management is not deputing them on work for a period
more than 44.15 hours in a week just to deny them the benefits of overtime allowances, which is unjust, illegal and
arbitrary.
Workman union has further prayed that the management be directed to depute the Fireman for 44 hours or
more in a week of 6 days instead of 40 hours a week which is at present.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7699
Management did not appear and did not file any written statement of defense.
The workman union filed affidavit of its Secretary and also the photocopy of the Circular mentioned above.
I have heard argument of learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel for the workman union. Management never
participated in this case. I have gone through the record as well.
The only issue of determination is whether the management can be obligated in law to depute the fireman
on duty for more than 44.15 hours or 48 hours and more in a week, so that they may be entitled to overtime
allowances.
Settled principle is that working hours of a workman is fixed. If management employs the workman for
working hours more than fixed as maximum, it is required to pay overtime for the additional hours, the workman has
been on duty. If management takes work from its employee for a period less than what is fixed, there is no law to
compel the management to take work from the workman for a period more than the workman is required to work, just
to enable to workman to claim overtime that too when there is no provision that the employer is bound to employ the
workman for a minimum period of hours on work.
In the light of above discussion, the claim of the workman union fails and the reference is answered as
follows :-
AWARD
Holding the demand raised by Fire Brigade Karmachari Sangh, Jabalpur (M.P.) against the
management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur to give 40 hours duty instead of 48 hours in a week
and to give 5 days duty instead of 06 days to fire brigade section employees as per Ordnance Factory Board
Letter No. 525/D/A/A/A(Pt)/V dated 13.05.1988, improper, illegal and unjustified, the fire brigade section
employees are entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE: 12/09/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2242.—औद्योजगक जववाद ऄजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के ऄनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार भारतीय भूवज्ञाजनक सवेक्षण, कोयला जड्रहलग प्रभाग, कोलकाता के जनदेिक (जड्रहलग) और श्री महेि जवश्वकमात,
िाहडोल, मध्य प्रदेि कमतचारी के बीच ऄनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक ऄजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय,
जबलपुर पंचाट (संदभत सं्या- 26/2019) को जजसा दक ऄनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल- 42012/203/2018-अइअर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2242.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 26/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation The
Director (Drilling),Geological Survey of India, Coal Drilling Division, Kolkata and Sh. Mahesh Vishwakarma,
Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh workman.
[No. L-42012/203/2018-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/2019
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S..(Retd)
Sh. Mahesh Vishwakarma,
S/o Lt. Keshav Vishwakarma,
R/o Vill. & Po. Lalpur,
Distt. Shahdol (M.P.) - 484001
Workman
7700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versues
The Director (Drilling),
Geological Survey of India,
Coal Drilling Division,
D.K.6, Sector,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700091
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 06th day of October - 2025)
As per letter dated 28/01/2019 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification
No. L-42012/203/2018-(IR(DU)) dt. 28/01/2019. The dispute under reference relates to:
―Whether the Geological Survey of India is an Industry under the ID Act 1947, if so, whether the action
of the Management of Geological Survey of India in terminating the services of Shri Mahesh
Viswakarma, Drilling Helper w.e.f.30/04/2018 who was working on daily rated basis w.e.f. 04/02/1988 and
completed more than 240 days in every Calendar year is fair and legal? If not, to what relief the workman
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 initially appointed as Drilling Helper by the Management vide
its order dated 04.02.1988 on daily rate basis, was posted under Unit In-charge Drilling Camp, Lalpur Distt. Shahdol
and worked till 30.04.2018 continuously for more than 240 days in every year. The Establishment is an ‗industry‘ and
an ‗industrial establishment‘ is defined under the Act. The applicant is a ‗Workman‘ as defined under the Act. The
Act of termination of the Workman by Management is ‗retrenchment‘ under the Act. According to the Workman, his
termination by Management in spite of his continuous working from 04.02.1988 to 30.04.2018 without any notice or
compensation is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. Also, it has been alleged that, the same category of
the Workman engaged by Management after engagement of the Applicant Workman have been retained in service,
hence the Management has acted in violation of Section 76 and 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1956 (in
short the ‗Rules‘) in prohibiting the principle first come last go. Further, it has been alleged that the Management has
adopted unfair practice by engaging the Workman as contract worker for 30 years which is prohibited under the Act.
The Workman has thus prayed that holding the action of Management against law, the Workman be held entitled to
be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits.
In its written statement of defense filed by the Management, they have pleaded that they are not an
‗Industry‘ as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act. The applicant is not a workman under the Act hence the reference
is not cognizable by this Tribunal. Further, they have pleaded that, the applicant was never issued any appointment or
posting letter at any point of time. He was not appointed by Management as Drilling helper vide order dated
04.02.1988 as claimed by him nor was he subsequently posted under Unit 482 as he claims. His engagement was
perpetual temporary in nature for intermittent period on contract and on as and when required basis. The Management
has further denied that no Workman junior to the Applicant Workman have been retained and has requested that
reference be answered against the Applicant Workman.
In its rejoinder the Workman has mainly reiterated his case as taken by him in his statement of claim.
In evidence, the Workman has filed and proved sanction letter of post, two certificates with respect to
engagement, work sanction orders for the period 2013, 2014, 2015, internal communications with respect to payment
of muster roll of skilled drilling helper and other unskilled contract labour for the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012, 2013, 2014, Certified statements of Accounts of Workman, marked as Ex. W-1 to W-5 respectively. The
Workman has further filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by Management.
The Management has filed affidavit of its witness Arobindo Biswas as his examination-in-chief. He has been
cross-examined by Workman. The Management has filed photocopy pre-receipt bills not admitted by Workman.
Management has not proved these photocopy documents.
I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel for the Workman Mr. K.B. Singh and Mr. S.K. Mishra
Learned Counsel for the Management. Workman has filed written submission also. I have gone through the written
submissions and record.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7701
On perusal of record in the light of rival submission following issues arise for determination –
1. Whether the Management is an ‗Industry‘ under the Act and applicant is a Workman as defined under
the Act?
2. Whether the disengagement of the Workman by Management is in violation of the Act?
3. Whether the Management has adopted unfair labour practice by engaging a contract Worker for a period
from 1988 to 2018?
4. Relief if any to which the Workman may be entitled to?
Issue No. 1 –
Before proceeding, certain provisions require to be reproduced which are as follows:
Section 2(s) – workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the
terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation
to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in
connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led
to that dispute, but does not include any such person—
(i)
who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii)
who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii)
who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per
mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the
powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
Section 2(j) - Industry means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and
includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;
It has been submitted from the side of the Management that, they are not an industry as defined under the
Act. Judgment of Hon‘ble High Court of Andhra in the Case of Geological Survey of India Employees Association
Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and other W.P. No. 323/1977 decided by single bench on 19.06.1978
has been referred to in this respect. The Single bench of Hon‘ble High Court has held that the Geological Survey of
India is not an Industry as defined under the Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced as follows
―I do not consider it necessary to consider the question whether the Geological Survey of India exercises
sovereign functions, as I am of the view that this is a case governed by separate rules and constitutional provisions.
As has been already observed, its employees are governed by the Civil Service Regulations, & Fundamental rules
governing Government employees and these provisions would, in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer "remove from
the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby" (Vide IV(d) at page 596, Volume 2 of the
report).‖
It has been submitted from the side of the Workman that firstly, this Judgment is not binding on this
Tribunal, rather it is only a possessive value and secondly, this judgment is against the statutory provisions.
The bare reading of the Section 2(j) of the Act shows that Industry is a systematic activity, carried by
cooperation by Employer and its workman for production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to
satisfy human wants or wishes. It also makes it clear that, purpose of the activity to make profit or investment of
capital is not material in this respect. In the leading case of Bangalore Water and Sewage Board V.s. A. Rajappa
AIR 1978 Supreme Court 548 corresponding citation (1978) 2 SCC 213. This judgment has been referred by the
Single Bench also; the relevant portions of the judgment are being reproduced as follows:
―140. “Industry', as defined in Section 2(j) and explained in Banerji, has a wide import.
“(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by co-operation between employer and employee (the direct
and substantial element is chimerical) (iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services
calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive of material things or
services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making, on a large scale prasad or food), prima facie, there is an „industry‟
in that enterprise.
(b) Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private or
other sector.
(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the
employer-employee relations.
7702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating
the undertaking.”
141. Although Section 2(j) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their meaning cannot be
magnified to overreach itself.
“(a) „Undertaking‟ must suffer a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerji and in this
judgment; so also, service, calling and the like. This yields the inference that all organized activity possessing the
triple elements in I, although not trade or business, may still be „industry‟ provided the nature of the activity, viz.
the employer-employee basis, bears resemblance to what we find in trade or business. This takes into the fold of
„industry‟ undertakings, callings and services, adventures „analogous to the carrying on the trade or business‟.
All features, other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz. in organizing the co-operation between
employer and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not matter, if on the employment terms there is analogy.”
142. Application of these guidelines should not stop short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds, cults or
inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or resultant of the economic operations. The ideology of
the Act being industrial peace, regulation and resolution of industrial disputes between employer and workmen, the
range off this statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory definition. Nothing less, nothing more.
“(a)
The consequences are (i) professions, (ii) clubs, (iii) educational institutions, (iv) co-operatives, (v)
research institutes, (vi) charitable projects, and (vii) other kindred adventures, if they fulfil the triple tests listed
in I, cannot be exempted from the scope of Section 2(j).
(b)
A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-operatives and even gurukulas and little research
labs, may qualify for exemption if, in simple ventures, substantially and, going by the dominant nature criterion,
substantively, no employees are entertained but in minimal matters, marginal employees are hired without
destroying the non-employee character of the unit.
(c)
If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves, free or for small honoraria or like
return, mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause, such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal
services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the
bidding of the holiness, divinity or like central personality, and the services are supplied free or at nominal cost
and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship, then,
the institution is not an industry even if stray servants, manual or technical, are hired. Such eleemosynary or like
undertakings alone are exempt — not other generosity, compassion, developmental passion or project.”
143.The dominant nature test:
“(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others not, involves employees on
the total undertaking, some of whom are not „workmen‟ as in the University of Delhi case [University of
Delhi v. Ramlfath, (1964) 2 SCR 703 : AIR 1963 SC 1873 : (1963) 2 Lab LJ 335] or some departments are not
productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated
nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur will be the true test. The whole undertaking
will be „industry‟ although those who are not „workmen‟ by definition may not benefit by the status.
(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses, sovereign functions, strictly understood, (alone) qualify for
exemption, not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by government or statutory bodies.
(c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are units which are industries and they are
substantially severable, then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j).
(d) Constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act
categories which otherwise may be covered thereby.”
151. Thus, in order to draw the “circle of industry”, to use the expression of my learned Brother Iyer, we do not
find even the term “workman” illuminating. The definition only enables us to see that certain classes of persons
employed in the service of the State are excluded from the purview of industrial dispute which the Act seeks to provide
for in the interests of industrial peace and harmony between the employers and employees so that the welfare of the
nation is secured. The result is that we have then to turn to the preamble to find the object of the Act itself, to the
legislative history of the Act, and to the socio-economic ethos and aspirations and needs of the times in which the Act
was passed.
152. The method which has been followed, whether it be called interpretation or construction of a part of an
organic whole in which the statute, its objectives, its past and its direction for the future, its constitutional setting are
all parts of this whole with their co related functions. Perhaps it is impossible, in adopting such a method of
interpretation, which some may still consider unorthodox, a certain degree of subjectivity. But, our attempt should be
not to break with the well established principles of interpretation in doing so. Progressive, rational and beneficial
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7703
modes of interpretation import and fit into the body of the old what may be new. It is a process of adaptation for
giving new vitality in keeping with the progress of thought in our times. All this, however, is not really novel, although
we may try to say it in a new way.
153. If one keeps in mind what was laid down in Heydon case referred to by my learned Brother Krishna Iyer, the
well-known principle that a statute must be interpreted as a whole, in the context of all the provisions of the statute,
its objects, the preamble and the functions of various provisions, the true meaning may emerge. It may not be strictly
a dictionary meaning in such cases. Indeed, even in a modern statute the meaning of a term such as “industry” may
change with a rapidly changed social and economic structure. For this proposition I can do no better than to quote
Subba Rao, J. speaking for this Court in Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxmi Narayan Chopra [AIR 1962 SC 159 :
(1962) 3 SCR 146] : (SCR pp. 156-57)
“The legal position may be summarized thus: The maxim contem-poranea exposito as laid down by Coke
was applied to construing ancient statutes but not to interpreting Acts which are comparatively modern. There is
a good reason for this change in the mode of interpretation. The fundamental rule of construction is the same
whether the Court is asked to construe a provision of an ancient statute or that of a modern one, namely, what is
the expressed intention of the legislature. It is perhaps difficult to attribute to a legislative body functioning in a
static society that its intention was couched in terms of considerable breadth so as to take within its sweep the
future developments comprehended by the phraseology used. It is more reasonable to confine its intention only to
the circumstances obtaining at the time the law was made. But in a modern progressive society it would be
unreasonable to confine the intention of a legislature to the meaning attributable to the word used at the time the
law was made, for a modern legislature making laws to govern a society which is fast moving must be presumed
to be aware of an enlarged meaning the same concept might attract with the march of time and with the
revolutionary changes brought about in social, economic, political and scientific and other fields of human
activity. Indeed, unless a contrary intention appears, an interpretation should be given to the words used to take
in new facts and situations, if the words are capable of comprehending them.”
161. The test indicated above would necessarily exclude the type of services which are rendered purely for the
satisfaction of spiritual or psychological urges of persons rendering those services. These cannot be bought or sold.
For persons rendering such services there may be no “industry”, but, for persons who want to benefit from the
services rendered, it could become an “industry”. When services are rendered by groups of charitable individuals to
themselves or others out of missionary zeal and purely charitable motives, there would hardly be any need to invoke
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to protect them. Such is not the type of persons who will raise such a
dispute as workmen or employees whatever they may be doing.
162. This leads one on to consider another kind of test. It is that, wherever an industrial dispute could arise
between either employers and their workmen or between workmen and workmen, it should be considered an area
within the sphere of “industry” but not otherwise. In other words, the nature of the activity will be determined by the
conditions which give rise to the likelihood of occurrence of such disputes and their actual occurrence in the sphere.
This may be a pragmatic test. For example, a lawyer or a solicitor could not raise a dispute with his litigants in
general on the footing that they were his employers. Nor could doctors raise disputes with their patients on such a
footing. Again, the personal character of the relationship between a doctor and his assistant and a lawyer and his
clerk may be of such a kind that it requires complete confidence and harmony in the productive activity in which they
may be co-operating so that, unless the operations of the solicitor or the lawyer or the doctor take an organised and
systematised form of a business or trade, employing a number of persons, in which disputes could arise between
employers and their employees, they would not enter the field of industry. The same type of activity may have both
industrial and non-industrial aspects or sectors.
163. I would also like to make a few observations about the so-called “sovereign” functions which have been
placed outside the field of industry. I do not feel happy about the use of the term “sovereign” here. I think that the
term „sovereign‟ should be reserved, technically and more correctly, for the sphere of ultimate decisions. Sovereignty
operates on a sovereign plane of its own as I suggested in Keshavananda Bharati case [(1973) 4 SCC 225] supported
by a quotation from Ernest Barker's Social and Political Theory. Again, the term “Regal”, from which the term
“sovereign” functions appears to be derived, seems to be a misfit in a Republic where the citizen shares the political
sovereignty in which he has even a legal share, however small, inasmuch as he exercises the right to vote. What is
meant by the use of the term “sovereign”, in relation to the activities of the State, is more accurately brought out by
using the term “governmental” functions although there are difficulties here also inasmuch as the Government has
entered largely new fields of industry. Therefore, only those services which are governed by separate rules and
constitutional provisions, such as Articles 310 and 311 should, strictly speaking, be excluded from the sphere of
industry by necessary implication.”
Nowhere in the Constituent Bench judgment, it has been laid down that the Rules by which an Employee is
governed will be a factor to determine whether the establishment is an industry or not. Reference of Section 13B of
7704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the Industrial Disputes Standing Order Act, 1946 is also required which is being reproduced as follows:-
13-B. Act not to apply to certain industrial establishments.--Nothing in this Act shall apply to an industrial
establishment in so far as the workmen employed therein are persons to whom the Fundamental and
Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service)
Rules, Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defense Service (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations than may be notified in
this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply.
A bare perusal of these provisions make it clear that, even if the Establishment is governed by Fundamental
and Subsidiary Rules, Civil Services Classification Control and Appeals Rules, Civil Services Temporary Services
Rules, Civil Services Regulation or India Railways Establishment code or other regulations, may be an Industry as
defined under the Act. It also provides that in case the Establishment or its employees as governed by these Codes
and Rules, the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 will not apply.
The aforesaid analysis makes it clear that, only because the establishment is govern by CCA Rules of
Fundamental and Subsidiary Rules, it does not ceases to be an Industry under Section 2(j) of the Act if it is otherwise
covered under this Section.
In the light of above discussion, the referred Single Bench Judgment will not help the Management.
Management has further referred to a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Bangalore wherein
the Geological Survey of India has been held not an ‗industry.‘ But, this Tribunal has held this organization as
‗industry‘ in Case R/35/2010.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the Geological Survey of India is held an industry as
defined under the Act. Consequently, the Applicant is held to be a Workman under the Act, and the dispute is
held to be an Industrial Dispute under the Act cognizable by this Tribunal.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2 –
Two facts are to be considered while considering this issue. First, is whether the Workman has successfully
proved his continuous engagement with the Management as defined under Section 25B of the Act for 240 days and
year including the year preceding the date of his disengagement and secondly, whether his disengagement is in
violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act.
As regards to the first point, Section 25B of the Act is being reproduced as follows:-
25B. Definition of continuous service. -
For the purposes of this Chapter —
(1)
a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted
service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an
accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on
the part of the workman;
(2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or
six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—
(a)
for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the
date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for
not less than—
(i)
one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine;
and
(ii)
two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b)
for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the
date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for
not less than—
(i)
ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.
Explanation.—
For the purposes of clause (2), the number of days on which a workman has actually
worked under an employer shall include the days on which—
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7705
(i)
he has been laid-off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946), or under this Act or under any
other law applicable to the industrial establishment;
(ii)
he has been on leave with full wages, earned in the previous years;
(iii)
he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment; and
(iv)
in the case of a female, she has been on maternity leave; so, however, that the total period of such
maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks.
Case of the Workman is that, he was first engaged as a Daily Wager on 04.02.1998 and continued till
30.04.2018 i.e. the date of his disengagement.
In his affidavit, as his examination in chief he has corroborated this allegation, and has stated that he had
continuously worked for 30 years ie; from 04.02.1998 and continued till 30.04.2018 & more than 240 days in every
year. In his cross-examination, he has stated that, he was not issued a formal appointment letter, he denied that he was
engaged by a Contractor or a labour contractor. Regarding the bills and vouchers photocopy produced by the
Management, he has stated that these documents do not bear his signatures.
On the other hand, case of the Management is that, he was a daily wager engaged on as and when required
basis. Management witness has stated that he was not appointed after any recruitment process. No appointment letter
was issued to him. He was engaged on contractual basis for intermittent periods and his contractual employment came
to end after closure of the Drilling Camp. He never worked continuously for 240 days in any year.
This witness has been confronted in his cross-examination with respect to Ex. W-1 and W-2 filed and
proved by Workman. W-1 is sanction letter dated 12.03.1988 for engagement of casual labour with a list of the
persons employed as casual labour containing the name of the applicant workman and W-2 is the sanction orders for
the period June, 2013 to August, 2014, showing the name of the workman in the list of payments of labour
contractors. This witness has stated that, he cannot tell about these documents. When confronted with Ex. W-3 and
W-4 filed and proved by the Workman Ex. W-4 is the muster roll of skilled and unskilled workers total 18 in number
for the period from 2007 to 2014, prepared by Management and W-5 the certified statement of the account of the
Workman, this witness has stated that he cannot tell about these documents also.
It comes out that, firstly, the Management takes a case that the Workman was employed as a Casual Labour
on as and when required basis and secondly, the documents specially Ex. W-2 mention that he was a Labour
Contractor. These documents are the documents of the Management, there is not on record, any document filed and
proved by Management with regard to contract labour or supply of contract labour by a labour contractor has been
filed. Hence, the case of Management that, the Workman was labour contractor is not reliable and is doubtful. From
the documents and statements as referred above, the case of the Workman that he was engaged by the Management
since 04.02.1988 till 30.04.2014 is held proved. It is also held proved that he has worked continuously with
Management for the period stated above as defined under Section 25B of the Act.
As regards to the second point, the Management witness has admitted that, no notice or compensation was
given to the Workman on his disengagement. Case of Management is that the project was closed, hence the workmen
were disengaged but there is no document corroborating this fact of closure. On the other hand, case of the workman
is that the Work is still going on. Hence, in the light of the these facts, the disengagement of the Workman by
Management is held in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. These provisions are being reproduced as
follows….
25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.— No workman employed in any industry who has been
in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a)
the workman has been given one month‟s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment
and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for
the period of the notice;
(b)
the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to
fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in
excess of six months; and
(c)
notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
25G. Procedure for retrenchment.—
Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he
belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the
7706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last
person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
On the basis of above discussion Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3 –
For the sake of the convenience, Section 2(r)(a), 25T and 25U as well the 5th Schedule of the Act (relevant
provisions) are being reproduced as follows:-
(ra) ―unfair labour practice‖ means any of the practices specified in the Fifth Schedule;
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.
THE FIFTH SCHEDULE
[See section 2(ra)]
UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES
I.—On the part of employers and trade unions of employers
(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.
From the above discussion it is held proved the Management had engaged the Workman as casual labour
from 1988 to 2018. This is an unfair labour practice under 5th Schedule mentioned above.
The Act prohibits unfair labour practice and provides punishment for such practice. The Act is silent with
respect to Civil consequences of unfair labour practice.
Since, unfair labour practice on the part of the Management is prohibited under the Act, the Courts and
Tribunals are within their powers to undo the effect of such unfair labour practices that were adopted by the
Management.
The following paragraphs of the judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh & Ors
VsState Of U.P. &Anr Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 are being reproduced in this respect as follows :
―1.When public institutions depend, day after day, on the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity demands
that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts, and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity. The
controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc engagement,
defended by shifting excuses and pleas of financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those who have kept
public institutions running. We resolve it by insisting that public employment should be organised with fairness
,reasoned decision making, and respect for the dignity of work.
……………………………………………………..
11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non suit the
appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi(Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the
constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State‘s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite
the employer‘s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous
reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal
appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the
work itself is permanent and the State has
failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3826 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221.Ghaziabad have emphatically
cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term ―ad hocism‖,
the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 9parity where identical duties
are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply wilfull force to the present case. The
relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder: The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the
absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7707
between appointments that are ―illegal‖ and those that are
―irregular,‖ the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi
cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking
legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent
need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes
spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish
such records despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence.
Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the
work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfill ongoing municipal requirements year after year
cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this
juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ―temporary‖ employment practices as done
by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:-
―22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy
has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 characterized by
lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and
undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the
principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices.
When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental
operations.
25.
It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to
employees. These practices manifest in several ways:-
Misuse of ―Temporary‖ Labels: - Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the
functioning of an institution are often labelled as ―temporary‖ or ―contractual,‖ even when their roles mirror those of
regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular
employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
•Arbitrary Termination: - Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018 them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: - Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary
employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort
to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: - Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as
pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social
security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.‖‖
As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient
shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial.
The Commission‘s further contention that the appellants are not ―full-time‖ employees but continue only by virtue of
interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long
history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State‘s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not
exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the
State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the
backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year
after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-
7708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the
promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that
overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that ―ad-hocism‖ thrives where administration is opaque. The
State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts
where the work is perennial. If ―constraint‖ is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered,
why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is
a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting
those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and
the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions: -
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from the
date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State
on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary
posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent)
without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not
less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the
appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and
promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: - Each appellant
shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the
regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and
(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the
case may be. Amounts
already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three
months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from
the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: - Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from
24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension,
gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised
pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: - In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency,
his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with
all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
These propositions of law and observations fully apply in the case in hand.
In the light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
The action of the Management of Geological Survey of India in terminating the services of Shri Mahesh
Viswakarma, Drilling Helper w.e.f.30/04/2018 who was working on daily rated basis w.e.f. 04/02/1988 and
completed more than 240 days in every Calendar year is held unfair and illegal.
The workman shall be reinstated by Management Bank with back wages and all consequential benefits.
He shall stand regularized with effect from the date on which he first raised the dispute before the Conciliation
Officer. He shall be paid as arrears, the full difference between the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum
of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and the amounts actually paid, for the period until the date
of regularization, as the case may be. The arrears shall be released within 30 days from the date of publication of
Award. In case of default, the unpaid amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of Award until
payment.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7709
The Workman shall also be paid litigation cost Rs. 25,000/- by Management within the time framed
mentioned above.
DATE:- 06/10/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2243.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
if”pe jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas 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 (06/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2025-अइअर (बी-I)-146]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2243.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Western Railway
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-146]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/06/2024
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
The General Secretary
Paschim Railway Karmchari Parishad
Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh-457001
Workman
Versus
The DRM
Western Railway, Do Batti
Ratlam.
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 20th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 19/12/2023 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur, Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, the reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
as per reference number RLC-16(07)/2019 dt. 19/12/2023. The dispute under reference related to:-
―Whether the demand of the retired employee Sh. Gokul Singh Rathore regarding payment of CTG raised
by the union General Secretary Paschim Karmachari parisadis valid ? If not what relief the workman is
entitled for ?‖
7710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. Workman
side never appeared. Mr. Rakesh Soni Learned Counsel filed his Vakalatnama for management of Railways. None of
the parties filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement of Defense.
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: 20/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2244.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (94/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12012/96/2015-अइअर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2244.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 94/2015) 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-12012/96/2015- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/94/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,
Ujjain (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
L.H.O. Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)- 11
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 12th day of November, 2025)
As per letter dated 30/09/2015 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-12012/96/2015 (IR(B-1)) dt. 30/09/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7711
" क्या दैननक वेतनभोगी बैंक कममचारी सॊगठन, द्वारा श्री देवेन्द्र गौड़ को ददनाॊक 19.11.2005 से ददनाॊक 02.06.2013
तक भारतीय स्टेट बैंक, भोऩाऱ की शाखा नई आबादी, मॊदसौर में काम करना बताकर 20 प्रनतशत बोनस राशश की माॊग करना
नायऔचचत है? अगर हाॊ तो, श्री देवेन्द्र गौड़ ककस अनुतोष के अचधकारी 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 union the claimant Devendra Goud was appointed against the vacant post of
Peon by the then Branch Manager, Naiabadi Branch, Mandasaur on 19.11.2005 and worked 8 hours a day regularly
till 02.06.2013, when he was disengaged by the Bank without any notice or compensation. He had worked
continuously for 240 days in every year and had discharged the duties of Peon for which he was paid his wages. He
was paid bonus @ 8.33% whereas he was entitled to bonus @ 20% which is being paid by the other Banks.
According to the union, this action of management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
The union has requested that holding the action of management is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He be held
entitled to bonus @ 20%
According to the management Bank, the claimant was engaged on daily wages purely on temporary basis
in the branch on, as and when required basis. He worked purely on temporary basis intermittently when there was
requirement, he worked 140 days in the year 2005-06, 20 days in 2007-08, 35 days in 2008-09, 179 days in 2009-10,
144 days in 2010-11, 32 days in 2011-12 and 2 days in 2013-14, for which he was paid his wages and bonus. The
management Bank has denied the claim of the workman union that the workman worked continuously for a period of
240 days and more in every calendar year.
In evidence, the workman union has filed affidavit of the workman Devendra Goud as his Examination-in-
chief, he has been cross-examined by management Bank.
He filed and proved Ex-W/1, Application before Labour Commissioner with respect to payment of bonus,
Ex-W/2, sheet showing details of payment of bonus from the year 2005 to 2013-14, Banker cheque with respect to
bonus, circulars with respect to minimum wages issued in different years from 2005-2013, certificate issued by the
Branch Manager on 14.05.2011 and note photocopy with respect to workers allotted and payment to the Bank for
cleaning and certain vouchers with respect to payment, letters issued by the Branch Manager on 17.01.2013 and
03.09.2013, to the Treasury Officer authorizing the workman to receive stamps issued by treasury, around 50 payment
vouchers with respect to payment for cleaning from 11.07.2009 to 2011, which are marked as Ex-W/1 to Ex-W/25.
The workman had filed Application seeking production of documents from management Bank. The Bank has filed
copies of payment register for the period 03.04.2010 to 06.07.2013 with respect to payments regarding cleaning of the
Branch to the claimant workman and other persons total 29 pages.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness Mr. Sumit Gupta, he has been cross-examined by workman
union.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. Praveen Yadav, Learned
Counsel for management Bank.
The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case in hand.
The minimum bonus which a management is required to pay under section 10 of Bonus Act, is 8.33%. For,
payment of bonus at higher rate, there has to be an agreement between the workman and management. No such
agreement has been filed. Hence, action of management Bank in not paying bonus to the applicant workman @ 20%
cannot be held to be unjustified.
Hence, holding the demand of workman union for payment of bonus to the applicant workman Mr.
Devendra Balram Gaud, @ 20%, unjustified, the reference stands answered accordingly.
DATE:- 12-11-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2245.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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 (93/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12011/58/2015-अइअर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
7712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2245.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 93/2015) 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-12011/58/2015- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/93/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,
Ujjain (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
L.H.O. Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)- 11
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 12th day of November, 2025)
As per letter dated 29/09/2015 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-12011/58/2015(IR(B-1)) dt. 29/09/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:-
"क्या दैननक वेतनभोगी बैंक कममचारी सॊघ द्वारा श्री देवेन्द्र बाऱाराम गौड़ (भृत्य )को ददनाक 19.11.2005 से ददॊनाक
02.06.2013 तक दैननक वेतन भोगी के रूऩ में काम करना बताने ऩर श्री देवेन्द्र बाऱाराम गौड़ तक ऩुनरीक्षऺत वेतनमान ऩाने का
हक़दार है? यदद हाॊ तो श्री गाॉड़ वेतन में अॊतर की ककतनी राशश के हक़दार 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 union the claimant Devendra Goud was appointed against the vacant post of
Peon by the then Branch Manager, Naiabadi Branch, Mandasaur on 19.11.2005 and worked 8 hours a day regularly
till 02.06.2013, when he was disengaged by the Bank without any notice or compensation. He had worked
continuously for 240 days in every year and had discharged the duties of Peon for which he was paid his wages.
According to the union, this action of management is in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act,
hence is unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
The union has requested that holding the disengagement of the workman Devendra Goud, by the
management Bank, against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
According to the management Bank, the claimant was engaged on daily wages purely on temporary basis
in the branch on, as and when required basis. He worked purely on temporary basis intermittently when there was
requirement, he worked 140 days in the year 2005-06, 20 days in 2007-08, 35 days in 2008-09, 179 days in 2009-10,
144 days in 2010-11, 32 days in 2011-12 and 2 days in 2013-14, for which he was paid his wages. The management
Bank has denied the claim of the workman union that the workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days and
more in every calendar year.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7713
This is also the case of the management that the claimant workman was not appointed against any regular
vacancy following recruitment process. He did not worked for 240 days in any year, hence, his disengagement by the
Bank cannot be faulted in law. Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
In evidence, the workman union has filed affidavit of the workman Devendra Goud as his Examination-in-
chief, he has been cross-examined by management Bank.
He filed and proved Ex-W/1, Application before Labour Commissioner with respect to payment of bonus,
Ex-W/2, sheet showing details of payment of bonus from the year 2005 to 2013-14, Banker cheque with respect to
bonus, circulars with respect to minimum wages issued in different years from 2005-2013, certificate issued by the
Branch Manager on 14.05.2011 and note photocopy with respect to workers allotted and payment to the Bank for
cleaning and certain vouchers with respect to payment, letters issued by the Branch Manager on 17.01.2013 and
03.09.2013, to the Treasury Officer authorizing the workman to receive stamps issued by treasury, around 50 payment
vouchers with respect to payment for cleaning from 11.07.2009 to 2011, which are marked as Ex-W/1 to Ex-W/25.
The workman had filed Application seeking production of documents from management Bank. The Bank has filed
copies of payment register for the period 03.04.2010 to 06.07.2013 with respect to payments regarding cleaning of the
Branch to the claimant workman and other persons total 29 pages.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness Sumit Gupta, he has been cross-examined by workman union.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. Praveen Yadav, Learned
Counsel for management Bank.
The reference itself is the issue for determination in the case.
The basis of claim of the workman with respect to regular and revised wages is the bipartite settlement. Case
of the management bank is that the bipartite settlement does not apply to daily wagers rather it applies to the regular
employees of the Bank. This is supported from the perusal of bipartite settlement. Hence, the claim of the workman
union regarding revised wages to the applicant workman who is a daily wager casual employee is not admissible in
law following judgments, cited by management bank are referred to in this respect.
1. State of Haryana & Ors. v/s Tilak Raj & Ors., 2003 SC 2658
2. Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors. v/s State of Bihar & Ors., 1997 SC 3657
3. State of Rajasthan & Ors. v/s Dayalal & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 429
Hence, holding the claim of workman union with regard to revised wages to the applicant workman,
unjustified, the reference stands answered accordingly.
DATE:- 12-11-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2246.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad 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 (92/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12011/49/2015-अइअर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2246.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 92/2015) 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-12011/49/2015- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
7714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/92/2015
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Karambhoomi, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,
Ujjain (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
L.H.O. Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)- 11
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 12th day of November, 2025)
As per letter dated 30/09/2015 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-12011/49/2015(IR(B-I)) dt. 30/09/2015. The dispute under reference relates to:-
" क्या दैननक वेतनभोगी कममचारी सॊघ दावरा श्री देवेन्द्र बऱराम गौड़ दैननक वेतन भोगी, (भृत्य )भारतीय स्टेट बैंक
शाॊखा मॊदसोर को बैंक दवारा ददॊनाक 19.11.05 से ऱगायत प्रनतवषम 240 ददन से अचधक कायम करने ऩर ददॊनाक 02.06.13 से बबना
सूचना, नोदटस ऩगार व् छटनी मुआवजा ददए बैंक से ऩृथक करने की माॊग न्द्यायोचचत है, यदद हाॊ तो श्री गौड़ ककस अनुतोष के
भागी 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 union the claimant Devendra Goud was appointed against the vacant post of
Peon by the then Branch Manager, Naiabadi Branch, Mandasaur on 19.11.2005 and worked 8 hours a day regularly
till 02.06.2013, when he was disengaged by the Bank without any notice or compensation. He had worked
continuously for 240 days in every year and had discharged the duties of Peon for which he was paid his wages.
According to the union, this action of management is in violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act,
hence is unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
The union has requested that holding the disengagement of the workman Devendra Goud, by the
management Bank, against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
According to the management Bank, the claimant was engaged on daily wages purely on temporary basis
in the branch on, as and when required basis. He worked purely on temporary basis intermittently when there was
requirement, he worked 140 days in the year 2005-06, 20 days in 2007-08, 35 days in 2008-09, 179 days in 2009-10,
144 days in 2010-11, 32 days in 2011-12 and 2 days in 2013-14, for which he was paid his wages. The management
Bank has denied the claim of the workman union that the workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days and
more in every calendar year.
This is also the case of the management that the claimant workman was not appointed against any regular
vacancy following recruitment process. He did not work for 240 days in any year, hence, his disengagement by the
Bank cannot be faulted in law. Management has requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
In evidence, the workman union has filed affidavit of the workman Devendra Goud as his Examination-in-
chief, he has been cross-examined by management Bank.
He filed and proved Ex-W/1, Application before Labour Commissioner with respect to payment of bonus,
Ex-W/2, sheet showing details of payment of bonus from the year 2005 to 2013-14, Banker cheque with respect to
bonus, circulars with respect to minimum wages issued in different years from 2005-2013, certificate issued by the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7715
Branch Manager on 14.05.2011 and note photocopy with respect to workers allotted and payment to the Bank for
cleaning and certain vouchers with respect to payment, letters issued by the Branch Manager on 17.01.2013 and
03.09.2013, to the Treasury Officer authorizing the workman to receive stamps issued by treasury, around 50 payment
vouchers with respect to payment for cleaning from 11.07.2009 to 2011, which are marked as Ex-W/1 to Ex-W/25.
The workman had filed Application seeking production of documents from management Bank. The Bank has filed
copies of payment register for the period 03.04.2010 to 06.07.2013 with respect to payments regarding cleaning of the
Branch to the claimant workman and other persons total 29 pages.
Management has filed affidavit of its witness Sumit Gupta, he has been cross-examined by workman union.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. Praveen Yadav, Learned
Counsel for management Bank. Both the sides have filed written arguments which are part of record. I have perused
the written argument also gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in light of rival arguments, following Issues arises:-
1)
Whether the workman union has successfully proved the engagement of the workman for 240
days in a year including the year preceding the date of his termination as per section 25-B of
the Act?
2)
Whether the disengagement of the workman by management is in violation of section 25-F and
25-G of the Act?
3)
Subject to findings on issue No. 1 and 2, whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
Issue No.1,
Section 25-B of the Act, which defines ‗continuous service‘, is being reproduced as follows:-
―25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1)
a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period,
in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of
sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out
or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a
period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under
an employer—
(a)
for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i)
one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below
ground in a mine; and
(ii)
two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b)
for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i)
ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a
mine; and
(ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.‖
Pleadings of the parties on this issue have been detailed earlier. The workman has corroborated the allegation
of the union on this issued. He has been cross-examined by management. He states that there was no advertisement
released for the vacancy, no test conducted and also states that payments were made to him in different names.
Learned Counsel for workman has submitted that he worked continuously with the bank for 240 days in
every year and also in the year preceding the date of his termination i.e., 02.06.2013 and this fact is established from
the payment vouchers filed and proved by the workman, cash remittance register from November, 2011 to December,
2011 and from cash remittance register Naiabadi Branch from 03.10.2011 to 31.05.2013 which have been filed by the
Bank also in compliance of order of this Tribunal.
Firstly, it is to be mentioned here that receiving payments by workman under different name is a crime, this
is cheating by way of impersonation, hence, he cannot take advantage of his this statement.
7716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On perusal of documents filed by him in support of his statement on oath, the certificate issued by the
Branch Manager, does not specifically states that the workman has been continuously working. Secondly, Ex-20
which is bunch of 148 photocopy documents, vouchers relating to Manish Telecom, Manish Computer, Stationery
and VIP Communication shows that payments were made to the firm of Manish with respect to supply of stationery,
etc. May be the payment was received by the workman, but it does not show that the workman worked as an
employee of management Bank. The two documents which are authorization letter dated 17.01.2013 and 03.09.2013
authorizing the workman to receive stamp from treasury only indicates that the workman was engaged for getting
stamp from treasury on these dates. Another bunch of documents is Ex-22 which are 45 photocopy receipts related to
payment with respect to cleaning of the branch by the Bank to the claimant workman within the period 11.07.2009 to
2010. Thus, bunch of document also indicates that the claimant was paid for dates mentioned in these documents in
different months in different years. This also does not corroborate fully the case of the workman, worked for 240 days
in any year.
The payment details filed by the management Bank under order of this Tribunal, as mentioned above,
contain the name of the workman as well other persons also, to whom the payments were made by the Bank. The case
of the workman union is that payments were made to him by Bank under fictitious names will not be counted in his
favour. Thus, these documents also do not fully corroborate the case of the workman on the point of his continuous
engagement of 240 days or more in a year or year preceding the date of termination. It is the case of the workman that
he was paid in different bogus names, this fact also goes against him. On the other hand, management witness has
stated that the workman never worked for 240 days in any year, he has mentioned number of days in which he worked
with the Bank in a year and that too for cleaning of the branch. There are photocopy vouchers filed by the workman
union showing that water payments were made to the workman with respect to procurement of water cans which he
received on behalf of the firm. Hence, the case laws referred to by the learned counsel for workman union in their
written arguments do not support them. It is already the case of the management that the workman was engaged
intermittently on as and when required basis.
Hence, in light of this nature of evidence, the claim of the workman union that the applicant workman
worked continuously for 240 days in any year or in a year preceding the date of disengagement is held not proved.
Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2,
In light of findings recorded on issue No. 1, this issue is answered against the workman, thus his
disengagement is justified in law.
Issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3
In light of aforesaid findings recorded on issue No. 1 and 2, the workman is entitled for no relief.
Issue No. 3 stands answered accordingly
In light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.-
AWARD
―Holding the demand of Daily Wage Employees Union to separate Shri Devendra Balram Gaud, Daily
Wage Employee (Peon), State Bank of India, Branch Mandsaur, from the bank with effect from 02.06.13 without
notice, salary and retrenchment compensation, justified. Shri Devendra Balram Gaud is held entitled to no relief.‖
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 12-11-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2247.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas 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 (78/2012) izdkf”kr djrh gS
[सं. एल- 12011/20/2011-अइअर (बी-I)]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7717
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2247.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 78/2012) 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-12011/20/2011- IR(B-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/78/2012
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
The General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karmchari Sangathan,
F-1, Tripti Vihar, Opp. Engg. College,
Ujjain (M.P.)
Workman
Vs
The Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Regional Office,
Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 06th day of November, 2025)
As per letter dated 15/06/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘) as per
Notification No. L-12011/20/2011(IR(B-I)) dt. 15/06/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:-
―Whether the demand of the Union, Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Sangathan, for appointment of Shri
Santosh Kumar Sahu on regular basis w.e.f. 07/10/2007 with pay is legal and justified? To what relief the
workman is entitled?‖
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.
The case of the workman is mainly that he was first appointed as a daily wage Peon on 08.03.004 by the
Branch Manager and worked 8 hours daily till 06.10.2007 without any notice or compensation, when he put up his
claim for regularization of his service. According to the workman union, this action of management is in violation of
Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act, hence unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
It is also alleged that on the basis of his continuous service with the bank for three years, he is entitled to be
regularized and denial of his this claim by the management bank is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. He has prayed that
holding the action of management bank in terminating his service and no regularizing his service against law, he be
held entitled to be reinstated and entitled to be regularized with all back wages and benefits.
The case of the management bank is mainly that the workman was never appointed against any permanent
vacancy of peon following any recruitment process. Hence, there was no occasion of his disengagement. According to
the Bank, he was a daily wager, engaged by Bank as and when required on intermittent basis for which he was paid
his daily wages. He never completed 240 days in any year; management has requested that the reference be answered
against the workman.
7718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In evidence, the workman has filed and proved order of Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. dated 28.01.2004 in
WP No. 4811/2000, in which he was one of the petitioner‘s, photocopy reply of Bank filed by them before the
Regional Labour Commissioner during conciliation proceedings, photocopy letter of Bank dated 03.05.2010
regarding payment of bonus to the workman, photocopy cheque of bonus amount, which are marked as Ex-W/1 to
Ex-W/4. Workman union has further filed affidavit of the workman as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-
examined by management.
Management has filed and proved Ex-M/1 and M/2 which are vouchers with respect to payment to the
workman, management has further filed affidavit of its witnesses as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-
examined by union.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. Praveen Yadav, Learned
Counsel for the management bank. I have gone through the record as well.
On perusal of record in light of rival arguments, following Issues came up for determination:-
1)
Whether the workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement with the management
Bank as defined under section 25-B of the Act?
2)
Whether the action of management in disengaging the workman is legal?
3)
Subject to findings on issue No. 1 and 2, whether the workman is entitled to any relief?
Issue No.1,
Section 25-B of the Act, which defines ‗continuous service‘, is being reproduced as follows:-
―25B. Definition of continuous service.—For the purposes of this Chapter,—
(1)
a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period,
in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of
sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out
or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;
(2)
where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a
period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under
an employer—
(a)
for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i)
one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below
ground in a mine; and
(ii)
two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
(b)
for a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made,
has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i)
ninety-five days, in the case of a workman employed below ground in a
mine; and
(ii)
one hundred and twenty days, in any other case.‖
Pleadings of the parties on this issue have been detailed earlier. According to the workman he was appointed
on the vacant post of Messenger in the branch in the year 1991 by the then Branch Manager, he worked continuously
for atleast 8 hours daily in the Bank. His services were earlier terminated by the Bank, he filed a writ petition No.
4811/2000, he was reemployed by the Bank on 08.03.2004 in compliance of the order of Hon‘ble High Court dated
28.01.2004 and he worked continuously after his repayment till date of disengagement i.e., 06.10.2007.
He has further stated that he was paid bonus, also in his cross-examination, he has stated the he came to
know about the vacancy from an advertisement released by the Bank, he had filled the form for appointment, he was
interviewed by the Branch Manager, his name was not sponsored by employment ex-change, no interview letter was
sent by the Bank. The Bank did not issue any appointment letter.
He further states in his cross-examination that he did job of carrying documents from one counter to other,
sent daak, carry cheques to clearing house and other works for which he was paid by the Bank. He admits that there
was a canteen in the branch and he used to bring tea and snacks for the bank employees from the canteen.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7719
There is on record, certified statement regarding payment to the workman which shows that during the
period he was paid different amounts ranging from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 50/- by way of different vouchers for carrying
cheques or other bank documents as well instruments to different places and visiting different places for bank works.
There are also payments vouchers with respect to payment to him for filling water in the bank coolers etc. These
vouchers show that he was paid the traveling expenses through these vouchers. When it is established that he had
been reimbursed his travelling expenses during the period from 2004 to 2007 for visiting different places for banking
work naturally, he would have been paid his wages also from the Bank, after all it cannot be assumed that he was
doing this job only for reimbursement of his travelling expenses. These facts establish his engagement by the bank
and also establish that he was engaged by the Bank in whatever capacity may be a daily wager.
He has been paid bonus also, this fact also corroborates his statement with regard to his engagement with the
Bank. On the other hand, there is on record affidavit of the management witness as his Examination-in-chief and his
cross-examination in which he has stated that the workman was only assigned the work of Hamali as and when
required basis and was paid remuneration for the work. Also that he worked only for 2 to 3 hours in a day. Infact, he
was engaged as canteen boy by the local implementation committee for providing tea, water and snacks to the
members, no appointment letter was issued by the Bank nor did he worked 240 days or more in any year.
The witness also states that he did not follow the recruitment process. In his cross-examination, this witness
states that it will be correct to say on the basis of salary payment reduced and available records that the workman was
working in the same branch since 1991 but he was working in which canteen, no record is available in this respect. He
pleads ignorance that the Bank had taken an interview test of the workman for sub-staff in the year 1997 and states
that there is no record of employment of the workman management by local implementation committee, this witness
further pleads ignorance regarding vacancy of peon in the said branch.
On a comparative statement and evidence from both sides as mentioned above, it comes out that the case of
management Bank that the workman was employed by the committee cannot be believed because there is no evidence
except the statement of the management witness. There is no document in this respect, there is no evidence also in this
respect. The management witness also admits that the workman used to do the Bank related works for which he was
paid, his only point is that he did not work continuously for 240 days in a year. The documents in form of vouchers
which show reimbursement of the workman on different dates with respect to the amount he incurred in travelling for
the Bank work, that he worked regularly during the period from 2004 to 2007 these are the Bank certified documents.
Thus, he is held to be a workman continuously for 240 days and more in every year including the year
preceding the date of his disengagement as defined under section 25-B of the Act and the Bank is held to be his
employer under the Act.
Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2,
Section 25-F & 25-G of the Act, is being reproduced as follows:
25F.
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.
No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one
year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-
(a)
the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu
of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b)
the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or
any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c)
notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such
authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the
Official Gazette.
25G.
Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a
citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that
establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this
behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be
employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other
workman.
It is undisputed that no notice was issued to the workman before his disengagement nor was he paid any
compensation. Hence his disengagement is held in violation of the act.
Issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.
7720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue No. 3
In light of aforesaid findings, the question arises as to relief to which the workman may be held entitled.
Management, learned counsel has submitted that there is nothing on record to show that there was a regular vacancy
at the time of his appointment, he was not sponsored by employment ex-change and he did not follow the recruitment
process. Hence, his appointment is illegal. Thus he should not be reinstated on the finding forced in this argument
from the side of the Bank.
Learned counsel for the workman has stated that he has been working with the Bank as a daily wager since
1991. He was once disengaged in the year 2000 and was reinstated under order of Hon‘ble High Court in 2004, again
disengaged arbitrarily in 2007, he requires to be reinstated with backwages and benefits.
There is force in the argument of management for the appointment of the workman was not through
recruitment process, hence, not a regular appointment, a lump sum compensation quantified Rs. 1Lac/- in lieu of all
his claims will meet the ends of justice which the workman is held entitled to be paid by the Bank within 30 days
from the date of publication of the award, failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till payment.
In light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.-
AWARD
―Holding the action of the management in disengaging the workman Santosh Kumar Sahu from
07/10/2007, illegal and unjustified, he is held entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs. 1Lac/- to be paid by the Bank
within 30 days from the date of publication award, failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of award till
payment, in lieu of all his claims.‖
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 06-11-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2248.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक ffookn
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक fvf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (03/2020-21) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2025-अइअर (बी-I)-148]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2248.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 03/2020-21) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-148]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/Appln./03/2020-21
Date: 07.11.2025.
Party No.1:
The State Bank of India & 17 others,
State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400032
V/s.
Party No.2: 1. Vajrabodhi s/o Ramchandra Meshram,
17, Barse Nagar, Pancpaoli,
Nagpur – 440017
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 3, 2026/पौष 13, 1947
7721
AWARD
(Dated: 07th November, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of State Bank of India the applicant Vajrabodhi s/o Ramchandra Meshram for adjudication vide case
No. CGIT/NGP/APPL./03/2020-21 with the following issues framed: -
―Whether the action of the management/ SBI by giving punishment ―be brought down to lower stage
in the scale of pay up to one stage‖ is legal, fair and justified? If so, what relief the applicants are
entitled to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Shri. Dadu Sachdev learned counsel for the management is present before the court but
none is present on behalf of the petitioner. From perusal of record, it is apparent that petitioner is not responding and
attending the court since 23.09.2021. Although, Statement of Claim and Written Statement have been filed by the
parties respectively but the petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove his case. The petitioner is not coming to the
court since long back. It appears that petitioner is not interested to contest the case further more. Claim of the
petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The applicants Vajrabodhi s/o Ramchandra is not entitled to any relief‖.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नइ ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.अ. 2249.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj
ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;
ds iapkV (02/2019-20) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल- 12025/01/2025-अइअर (बी-I)-147]
सलोनी, ईप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2249.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2019-20) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Reserve Bank of India
their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025- IR(B-I)-147]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/Appln.02/2019-20
Date: 04.11.2025.
Party No.1:
1. The Regional Director,
Reserve Bank of India,
Samvidhan Square, Nagpur - 440001
2. M/s World Wide Security,
B-6, Vidya Nagar, Hosangabad road,
Bhopal MP- 462026.
7722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 3, 2026/PAUSHA 13, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
V/s.
Party No.2: The Secretary,
Nagpur General Workers Union,
NMCEU 502 Dugdh Vikas Karmachari
Gruh Nirman Sanstha, Civil Lines, GPO Square,
Nagpur - 440001
AWARD
(Dated: 04th November, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (1) & (2) of Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
Act, 2010 (―the Act‖ in short), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Reserve Bank of India and one other and the Union ―Nagpur General Workers Union for adjudication
with the following issues framed: -
―Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India and M/s. World Wide Securities in
terminating the services of the workman Shri. Mahipal Karia and 17 others is fair, just and proper? If
not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Mrs Sharanya S, Manager herself is present on behalf of the respondent/management
today in the court. But none is present on behalf of petitioner. From perusal of record, it is apparent that petitioner is
not responding and attending the court since 08/04/2022, although Statement of Claim and Written Statement have
been filed by the parties respectively. The petitioner has also filed his affidavit as an evidence but petitioner has not
come to the court to prove the contents of the Statement of Claim and the contents of the affidavit filed by him. No
other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is
closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The action of the management of Reserve Bank of India and M/s. World Wide Securities in
terminating the services of the workman Shri. Mahipal Karia and 17 others is fair, just and proper. The
concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief‖
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA
Digitally signed by GORAKHA NATH
YADAVA
Date: 2026.01.07 15:08:34 +05'30'