8760 GI/2025
(7723)
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. 52]
नई ददल् ली, जनवरी 4, 2026—जनवरी 10, 2026, िजनवार/पौष 14—पौष 20, 1947
No. 52]
NEW DELHI, JANUARY 4, 2026—JANUARY 10, 2026, SATURDAY/PAUSHA 14– PAUSHA 20, 1947
इस 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—उप-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजधक आदेि और अजधसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्रालय
(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)
नई ददल्ली, 15 ददसम्बर, 2025
का.आ. 2250.—केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम,1976 के जनयम 10
के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड के अधीन केन् रीय माल एवं
सेवा कर (अपील) आयुक् तालय, गुरुग्राम के कायाडलय, जजसके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों एवं कमडचाररयों ने जहन्दी
का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]
प्रीजत सेलारे, उप जनदेिक (रा.भा.)
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-14012026-269334
CG-DL-W-14012026-269334
7724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2025
S.O. 2250.—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 CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICES TAX
(APPEALS) COMMISSIONERATE, GURUGRAM under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Department of Revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]
PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)
नई ददल्ली, 15 ददसम्बर, 2025
का.आ. 2251.—केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम,1976 के जनयम 10
के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड के अधीन जवश्लेजषकी एवं
जोजखम प्रबंधन महाजनदेिालय नई ददल्ली के कायाडलय, जजसके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों एवं कमडचाररयों ने
जहन्दी का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]
प्रीजत सेलारे, उप जनदेिक (रा.भा.)
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2025
S.O. 2251.—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 Directorate General of Analytics & Risk
Management, New Delhi under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue where more
than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]
PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)
नई ददल्ली, 15 ददसम्बर, 2025
का.आ. 2252.—केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10
के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड के अधीन केंरीय माल और
सेवा कर (अपील), पंचकुला, हररयाणा के कायाडलय, जजसके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों एवं कमडचाररयों ने जहन्दी
का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को अजधसूजचत करती हज।
[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]
प्रीजत सेलारे, उप जनदेिक (रा.भा.)
New Delhi, the 15th December, 2025
S.O. 2252.—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, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
(APPEALS), Panchkula, Haryana under Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue
where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.
[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]
PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7725
जवदेि मंत्रालय
(प्रवासी रोजगार एवं उत्प्रवासी महासंरक्षक प्रभाग)
नई ददल्ली, 17 ददसम्बर, 2025
का.आ. 2253.—सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी (मध्यस्ट्थ और जडजजटल मीजडया आचार संजहता के जलए ददिाजनदेि)
जनयम, 2021 के जनयम 3 के उप-जनयम (1) के खंड (घ) के साथ पर त सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजधजनयम, 2000 (2000 का
21) की धारा 79 की उप-धारा (3) के खंड (ख) के अनुसरण में, केंर सरकार एतद् द्वारा, जवदेिी रोजगार में संबंजधत
मामलों पर गजरकानूनी जानकारी के संबंध में मध्यस्ट्थों को टेक डाउन नोरटस जारी करने के जलए जवदेि मंत्रालय में संयुक्त
सजचव (प्रवासी रोजगार) एवं उत्प्रवासी महासंरक्षक को नोडल अजधकारी के प प में नाजमत करती हज।
[फा. सं. Z-385/05/2025-LP&G]
सुररदर भगत, संयुक् त सजचव एवं उत्प्रवासी महासंरक्षक
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(Overseas Employment and Protector General of Emigrants Division)
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2025
S.O. 2253.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub section (3) of section 79 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 (21 of 2000) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Information Technology (Guidelines for
Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Central Government hereby designates
Joint Secretary(Overseas Employment) & Protector General of Emigrants in the Ministry of External Affairs as the
nodal officer for issuing take down notices to the intermediaries in respect to unlawful information on matters
pertaining to overseas employment.
[F. No. Z-385/05/2025-LP&G]
SURINDER BHAGAT, Jt. Secy. & Protector General of Emigrants
कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय
(कार्ममक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)
नई ददल्ली, 24 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2254.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की
उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खंड 3, उपखंड (ii) में, सं्यांक
का.आ. 747, तारीख 15 अप्रजल, 2024 द्वारा प्रकाजित भारत सरकार के कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय की
अजधसूचना में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, अथाडत्:-
उक्त अजधसूचना में, सारणी में, सुश्री सुमन ाकुर से संबंजधत क्रम सं्या 2 और उससे संबंजधत प्रजवजियों का लोप
दकया जाएगा।
[फा. सं. 225/03/2024-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव
7726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel Public and Training)
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2025
S.O. 2254.—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. 747, dated the 15th April, 2024,
namely: -
In the said notification, in the Table, serial number 2 relating to Ms. Suman Thakur and the entries relating
thereto, shall be omitted.
[F. No. 225/03/2024-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नई ददल्ली, 26 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2255.—केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की
उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री कश्मीर ससह ाकुर, अजधवक्ता के नाम को, जहमाचल प्रदेि उच्च
न्यायालय, जिमला के समक्ष जविेष लोक अजभयोजक के प प में, केंरीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन,
(केन्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत मामलों से उद्भूत अजभयोजन, अपील, पुनरीक्षण और अन्य मामलों का संचालन
करने से हटाती हज और इस प्रयोजन के जलए भारत सरकार के कार्ममक, लोक जिकायत और पेंिन मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना
सं्यांक का.आ.2079 तारीख 23 जसतंबर, 2024 में जनम्नजलजखत संिोधन करती हज, अथाडत्:-
उक्त अजधसूचना में, “अजधवक्तागण श्री कश्मीर ससह ाकुर और श्री जनेि महाजन” िब्दों के स्ट्थान पर “श्री जनेि
महाजन अजधवक्ता” िब्द रखे जाएंगे।
[फा. सं. 225/22/2024-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2025
S.O. 2255.—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 removes the name of Shri Kashmir Singh
Thakur, as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeals, revisions and other matters arising out
of the cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) before the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla and for that purpose, hereby makes the following amendment in the
notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions number S.O. 2079,
dated the 23rd September, 2024, namely:–
In the said notification, for the words ―Shri Kashmir Singh Thakur and Shri Janesh Mahajan, Advocates‖,
the words ―Shri Janesh Mahajan, Advocate‖ shall be substituted.
[F. No. 225/22/2024-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नई ददल्ली, 26 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2256.—केंरीय सरकार एतदद्वारा ददल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय
अजधजनयम XXV) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए पुजलस उप
महाजनरीक्षक/िाखाप्रमुख, सीबीआई, एसीबी, रांची के ददनांक 17.10.2025 के पत्र सं्या 929/2025-आर द्वारा दकए
गए अनुरोध पर झारखंड राज् य सरकार की अजधसूचना ज्ञापन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-428/2025-6765, रांची, ददनांक
11.11.2025, गृह, कारागार और आपदा प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से श्री रंजन, डाक सहायक, डाक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7727
जवभाग, संचार मंत्रालय एवं अन्य अज्ञात सरकारी सेवक(कों) के जवरुद्ध भ्रिाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 (2018 में
यथा संिोजधत) की धारा 7 के तहत अपराध करने के जलए ददनांक 11.11.2025 को पंजीकृत आरसी 0242025ए0015
में साथ ही इस मामले के अन्वेषण के दौरान प्रकाि में आए दकन्ही अन्य अपराधों एवं ऐसे एक या उससे अजधक अपराधों
से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से
उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराध(धों) के जलए मामला दजड करने एवं अन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन के
सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से, ददनांक 11.11.2025 से) झारखंड राज्य में
करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/103/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2025
S.O. 2256.—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 XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent
of the State Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-428/2025-6765, Ranchi, Dated
11.11.2025, Home, Prisons and
Disaster Management Department upon request
made
vide letter
number 929/2025-R,dated 17.10.2025 of DIG of Police/Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Ranchi, hereby extends the
power and jurisdiction to all the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Jharkhand (ex post
facto w.e.f. 11.11.2025) for registration and investigation in RC0242025A0015 registered on 11.11.2025 against
Shri Ranjan, Postal Assistant, Department of Post, Ministry of Communications and unknown other Govt. Servant(s)
for committing offence u/s 7 of PC Act-1988 (as amended in 2018) and any other offences that may come to light
during investigation of this case including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation 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. 228/103/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नई ददल्ली, 26 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2257. —केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय
अजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए अजधसूचना सं.
जी.ओ.(2डी).सं. 351, ददनांक 31.10.2025, गृह (पुजलस–XV) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तजमलनाडु राज्य सरकार की
सम्मजत से श्री एस.के.एस.नागराजन, श्री अररयामुथु गुनासेकर, श्री मारन रबीन्र सजलापजत, श्री अररयामुथु वीरमनी और
मेससड फेंस एजुकेिन अकेडमी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, जतरुनेलवेजल के जवरुद्ध भारतीय न्याय संजहता, 2023 (2023 का केंरीय
अजधजनयम 45) की धारा 61(1) सपर त भ्रिाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 (1988 का केंरीय अजधजनयम 49) (वषड
2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 7 और 11 के तहत मामले के पंजीकरण हेतु ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन के सदस्ट्यों की
िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु राज्य में करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/105/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2025
S.O. 2257.—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. 351 dated 31.10.2025, Home
(Police-XV) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu to register a case against Sh. S.K.S.Nagarajan, Sh. Ariyamuthu
Gunasekar, Sh. Maran Rabindra Sailapathy, Sh. Ariyamuthu Veeramani and Messers Fence Education Academy
Private Limited, Tirunelveli under section 61(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Central Act 45 of 2023) read
with sections 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) (amended in 2018).
[F. No. 228/105/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
7728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 26 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2258.—केंरीय सरकार, एतद द्वारा, ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का
केन्रीय अजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए आदेि सं.
एचडी 230 सीओडी 2025, बेंगलुरु, ददनांक 06/12/2025 के माध्यम से जारी कनाडटक राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से
श्रीमती जप्रयंका वी. पेटकर, राजस्ट्व अधीक्षक, छावनी बोडड, बेलगाम एवं अन्य अज्ञात लोक सेवक(कों) तथा अज्ञात गजर-
सरकारी व्यजक्तयों के जवरुद्ध भ्रिाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 (2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 7 एवं केन्रीय
अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा अन्वेषण हेतु अन्य अजधसूजचत अजधजनयमों के अंतगडत दंडनीय अपराधों, दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा और
षड्यंत्र सजहत अन्य संचयी अपराधों और पूछताछ/अन्वेषण के दौरान सामने आने वाले दकसी अन्य अपराध के जलए ददनांक
07.12.2025 को दजड दकए गए आरसी 0372025ए0002 में पंजीकरण एवं अन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस
स्ट्थापन के सदस्ट्यों की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से, ददनांक 07.12.2025 से) करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/106/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2025
S.O. 2258.—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 230 COD 2025, Bengaluru, Dated: 06/12/2025, hereby
extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex post fact
w.e.f. 07.12.2025) for registration and investigation in RC0372025A0002 registered on 07.12.2025 against
Smt. Priyanka V. Petkar, Revenue Superintendent, Cantonment Board, Belgaum and as well as other unknown public
servant(s) and unknown private person(s) for the offences punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and any other acts notified for investigation by CBI, other cumulative offences and
any other offence that may come to light during enquiry/investigation, including any attempt, abetment and
conspiracy.
[F. No. 228/106/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
नई ददल्ली, 26 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2259. —केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय
अजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की उप-धारा (1) सपर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए अजधसूचना सं.
जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.106, ददनांक 17.09.2025, गृह (जविेष) जवभाग और िुजद्धपत्र अजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.131,
ददनांक 12.11.2025, गृह (जविेष) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी तेलंगाना राज्य सरकार की सम्मजत से यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ
इंजडया ,सोमाजीगुड़ा िाखा को 48.88 करोड़ रुपए का सदोष हाजन काररत करने के जलए मेससड वज्णोवी इंराटाटेक
जलजमटेड (पूवड में मेससड टीएनआर इंराटा प्रोजेक््स जलजमटेड के नाम से ज्ञात), श्री गंगाधर राव तजम्मनेडी (प्रबंध जनदेिक),
श्री सुब्बा राव वेंकट वुप्पलापजत (जनदेिक), श्री अजय कुमार काकालाडपुडी (जनदेिक), श्री लक्ष्मा रेड्डी मारेल्ला (जनदेिक),
श्रीमती चल्लागुल्ला जवजयाश्री (जनदेिक), श्री तजम्मनेडी सागर (जनदेिक), श्रीमती कृ्णा कुमारी तजम्मनेडी (जनदेिक)
& श्री अचेउकोलू श्रीजनवास राव (जनदेिक) एवं अन्य अज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं अज्ञात गजर सरकारी व्यजक्तयों के जवरुद्ध
ददनांक 21.02.2023 की जिकायत के आधार पर भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 की धारा 120बी सपर त धारा 406,
420, 467, 468 & 471 तथा भ्रिाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 की धारा 13(2) सपर त 13(1)(डी) के अंतगडत
पंजीकृत होने वाले अपराध एवं उक्त मामले के अन्वेषण के दौरान सामने आने वाले दकसी अन्य अपराध सजहत ऐसे एक या
उससे अजधक अपराधों से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्प्रयास, दु्प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में दकए
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7729
गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराध(धों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापन के सदस्ट्यों
की िजक्तयों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तेलंगाना राज्य में करती हज।
[फा. सं. 228/104/2025-एवीडी-II]
सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव
New Delhi, the 26th December, 2025
S.O. 2259.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of
the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.106 dated 17.09.2025, Home (Special)
Department and Errata Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.131 dated 12.11.2025, Home (Special) Department, hereby
extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Telangana
for investigation in respect of the crime to be registered under section 120-B read with sections 406, 420, 467, 468 &
471 of Indian Penal Code 1860, and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (Central Act No.49 of 1988) and any other offence that may come to light during investigation of the said case
including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more such offences and/or
any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts on the basis of
complaint dated 21.02.2023 against M/s. Vaishnovi Infratech Limited (formerly known as M/s. TNR Infra Projects
Limited), Shri Ganghadhar Rao Thamminedi (Managing Director), Shri Subba Rao Venkata Vuppalapati (Director),
Shri Ajay Kumar Kakarlapudi (Director), Shri Laxma Reddy Marella (Director), Smt. Challagulla Vijayasri
(Director), Shri Thamminedi Sagar (Director), Smt. Krishna Kumari Thamminedi (Director) & Shri Acheukolu
Srinivas Rao (Director) and unknown public servants and unknown Private Persons for causing wrongful loss of
Rs.48.88 Crores to Union Bank of India, Somajiguda Branch.
[F. No. 228/104/2025-AVD-II]
SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.
उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सावडजजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय
(खाद्य और सावडजजनक जवतरण जवभाग)
नई ददल्ली, 11 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2260.—केन्रीय सरकार राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के
जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सावडजजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय (खाद्य और
सावडजजनक जवतरण जवभाग) के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायाडलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित या उससे अजधक
कमडचारीवृन्द ने जहन्दी का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को राजपत्र में अजधसूजचत करती हज:-
क्र.सं.
अजधसूजचत दकए जाने वाले कायाडलय
1.
भारतीय खाद्य जनगम, मंडल कायाडलय, जमुई
2.
भारतीय खाद्य जनगम, मंडल कायाडलय, आददपुर
3.
केन्रीय भंडारण जनगम, क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय, भुवनेश्वर
[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-सहदी (321924)]
अजश्वनी श्रीवास्ट्तव, संयुक् त सजचव
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
New Delhi, the 11th December, 2025
S.O. 2260.—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 the administrative control of
the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Food & Public Distribution), whereof
80% or more staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:
7730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S. No.
Offices to be notified
1.
Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jamui
2.
Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Adipur
3.
Central Warehousing Corporation, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar
[F. No. E-11011/1/2008-Hindi (321924)]
ASWANI SRIVASTAVA, Jt. Secy.
श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय
नई ददल्ली, 17 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2261.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj बीसीसीएल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
-
सह
-
] धनबाद-Ids iapkV (
18/2008) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-20012/31/2008-आईआर (सीएम-I)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/सलक अजधकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2025
S.O. 2261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of
BCCL. and their workmen received by the Central Government on 17/12/2025.
[No. L-20012/31/2008– IR (CM-I)]
SALONI, Dy. Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d)& (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.
Reference Case No. 18/2008
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of Lodna Area
Of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
AND
Their Workmen
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :-Sri S.N. Ghosh, Ld. Advocate
For the workmen :- Sri R. R. Ram, Representative
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Coal
Dated 02/12/2025
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7731
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Government Of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No.L-20012/31/2008- IR(CM-I) dated 28/04/2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad and their workman through Joint General
Secretary, Bahujan Mazdoor Union, Dhansar, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing
dependent employment to Sh. Bhola Bhuia, S/o- Late Ganauri Bhuia, Loader, under the provisions
of NCWA is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the dependent son of Late Ganauri Bhuia
entitled?‖
2.
It is relevant to mention here that this reference case was already disposed of vide this court award dated
19.11.15 and thereafter when the same was challenged by the management before the Hon‘ble High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi, the Hon‘ble Court was pleased to set aside the Award dated 19.11.2015 passed by this Court and
remitted back this reference case to decide the dispute and pass final order after hearing both the parties.
3.
The case of the applicant as per the written statement filed on behalf of the union on 24.09.2008 is that
Ganauri Bhuia designated as Ex-Loader bearing his CMPF A/c No. C/17/327 and I.D. Card No. 154788 was a
permanent workman in Bagdigi Colliery under Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL who died on 13.03.1994 while in service.
At the time of death his dependent son Bhola Bhuia was teenage and a representation was submitted for employment
to the dependent. When Bhola Bhuia reached the age of 18 years, he approached to the authority concerned to get
employment in place of his deceased father in accordance with the provisions of NCWA-IV but it was not considered.
Sri Bhola Bhuia dependent of Late Ganauri Bhuia is entitled to get employment in place of his deceased father as per
the above provision and the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing
employment to Sri Bhola Bhuia is not justified. The demand of the employment by Bhola Bhuia is legal and justified
and it was prayed to pass award in favour of the applicant.
4.
On the other hand the case of the management as per written statement cum rejoinder dated 16.07.2019 is
that the present reference is bad in law and is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the dependent is hopelessly barred
by limitation. The dependent claimant had not come up before this Tribunal with clean hands. It is fact that Late
Ganauri Bhuia was working as Loader at Bagdigi Colliery at the time of his death and as per official record his year
of birth was 1956 and he was appointed on 17.04.1978 and he expired on 13.03.1994. In the service excerpt of Late
Ganauri Bhuia the name of Budhni Bhuini appears as wife and Bhola Bhuia, the claimant appears as son. It has
further been submitted that Budhni Bhuini during her life time had declared herself as widow of Dwarika Bhuia and
in the service excerpt of Late Budhni Bhuini, Dwarika Bhuia appears as father but in other records her husband‘s
name is mentioned as Late Dwarika Bhuia. Bhola Bhuia has filed an affidavit wherein he has mentioned his father‘s
name as Late Dwarika Bhuia while submitting application for employment in place of her mother Late Budhni
Bhuini. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the claimant Bhola Bhuia is not the son of Late Ganauri Bhuia. Before the
Conciliation Officer also he could not produce any chit of paper to prove that he is the son of Late Ganauri Bhuia
while claiming employment in his place. The claim of employment has been filed at a very belated stage and it is well
covered by the judgments of the Hon‘ble Court that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of
right and it cannot be kept reserve for long and the management had rightly denied the claim of the claimant. In his
rejoinder he has submitted that the statement made in Para-1 of ws by the union requires no comment. The statement
made in Para-2 by the union is matter of record. The Statement made in Para-3 by the union is denied as Bhola Bhuia
has filed affidavit declaring himself as son of Late Dwarika Bhuia and he has never submitted any representation after
the death of Ganauri Bhuia before the management for employment. The statement made in Para-4, 5, 6 and 7 by the
union is denied as the case of Bhola Bhuia does not fall within the purview of NCWA and he has himself declared as
son of Dwarika Bhuia and so the denial of employment is legally justified and the demand of the union is illegal and
prayed to hold the action of the management in not providing employment to Bhola Bhuia is fair, legal and justified.
5.
Rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the union submitting therein that the fact as content in Para-1 of
the W/S of the management is a fact. The Statement made in Para-2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 has been denied as not
correct. The statements made in Para-6 and 7 is matter of record and the facts mentioned in Para-13 is matter of
policy. At last it was prayed to pass Award in favour of the claimant.
6.
Issue
Whether the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/s. BCCL in not providing dependent
employment to Sh. Bhola Bhuia, S/o- Late Ganauri Bhuia, Loader, under the provisions of NCWA is justified and
legal? If not, to what relief is the dependent son of Late Ganauri Bhuia entitled?‖
7.
In support of his case the union has examined WW-1, Bhola Bhuiya.
7732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
In support of his case the union has adduced the following documentary evidence:-
Exhibit W-1 – Death Certificate of Late Ganauri Bhuia.
Exhibit W-2 – Service Excerpts of Late Ganauri Bhuia.
9.
In support of its case the management has examined MW-1, Prabhat Kumar.
10.
The management has adduced the following documentary evidence in support of its case:-
Exhibit M-1 – Copy of Circular of BCCL dated 06/24.01.2004.
Exhibit M-2 – Copy of Service Excerpt of Late Ganauri Bhuia.
Exhibit M-3 – Copy of Service Excerpt of Late Budhni Bhuini.
Exhibit M-4 – Letter dated 12/14.04.1994 to the Agent, Bagdigi Colliery Lodna Area – X.
Exhibit M-5 –Letter of Project Officer/Manager, Bagdigi Colliery to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
Dhanbad.
Exhibit M-6 Series – Letter to Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi written by Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad-III regarding failure of conciliation report.
11.
Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
12.
The learned Representative of the claimant has submitted that this is a case of dependent employment and
Ganauri Bhuia was a permanent workman at Bagdigi Colliery under M/s. BCCL who died in harness on 13.03.1994
and at the time of death, the claimant Bhola Bhuia who was dependent son of the said deceased, was teenage. So the
wife of the said deceased workman made a representation before the concerned management to record the name of his
son Sri Bhola Bhuia in live Roster but management did not accept her representation. When Bhola Bhuia reached the
age of 18 years, he represented himself before the authority concerned for providing him employment in place of his
deceased father in accordance with the provisions of NCWA-IV but the concerned authority did not provide him
employment. He has also submitted death certificate of his late father as well as his service excerpts in which the
name of Bhola Bhuia has been recorded as the son of the deceased but ultimately his case was rejected by the
management whereas he is legally entitled for dependent employment on compassionate ground and prayed to pass
award in his favour.
13.
On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for the management has submitted that Ganauri Bhuia who was Ex-
employee of Bagdigi Colliery died on 13.03.1994 and in his service excerpts the name of Budhni Bhuini as wife and
Bhola Bhuia as son has been recorded but Budhni Bhuini during her life time declared herself as widow of Dwarika
Bhuia but in her service excerpts the name of Dwarika Bhuia appears as father. The claimant Bhola Bhuia has also
filed an affidavit before the management wherein he has mentioned his father‘s name as Dwarika Bhuiya while
submitting application for employment in place of his mother Budhni Bhuini which shows that Bhola Bhuia is not the
son of Late Ganauri Bhuia and so he is not entitled to get employment in his place. He also could not produce any
document before Conciliation Officer to prove his father‘s name as Ganauri Bhuia. The present case has been filed
after about 10 years of the death of Ganauri Bhuia and so it is hopelessly by barred by limitation. The compassionate
appointment is not a matter of right. At the time of death of Ganauri Bhuia NCWA-V was in operation and effective
since 01.07.1991 to 30.06.1996 and as per the same it is clear that a male dependent of the concerned worker if of 15
years or above in age at the time of death, he will be kept on live Roster and would be provided employment
commensurate with his skill and qualification when he attains the age of 18 years whereas the claimant Bhola Bhuia
was only 9 years old at the time of death and so the claim is time barred and he is not entitled for any compassionate
appointment.
14.
As regards the oral evidence of the union, WW-1 Bhola Bhuia, claimant himself has deposed that he is the
son of Late Ganauri Bhuia who was permanent workman in Bagdigi Colliery of M/s. BCCL and died on 13.03.1994
while in service. His name also appears in his father‘s service excerpts showing his relationship as son. At the time of
death of his father he was teenager and after reaching 18 years he applied for his employment which was regretted by
the higher authority. He is entitled to get employment in place of his deceased father in accordance with the provision
of NCWA-IV. In his cross-examination he has stated that his father died on 13.03.1994. He was working as loader in
Bagdigi Colliery but his mother Budhni Devi was not a working leady. She died two to three years back but he can
not tell the year. He has denied the fact that his mother was working in BCCL. He has denied of filing any affidavit
before BCCL showing his father‘s name as Dwarika Bhuia.
15.
As regards the documentary evidence of the claimant, Exhibit W-1 is the photo copy of Death Certificate of
Ganuari Bhuia and on its perusal it transpires that his date of death has been mentioned as 13.03.1994. Exhibit W-2 is
the photo copy of Service Excerpts of Late Ganauri Bhuia and on its perusal it transpires that the name of Budhni
Bhuini has been mentioned as wife and the name of claimant Bhola Bhuia has been mentioned as son in the column
of relationship.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7733
16.
As regards the oral evidence of the management, MW-1, Prabhat Kumar has deposed that claimant has
sought for job in place of his deceased father who died on 13.03.1994. As per service excerpts the age of the claimant
was 9 years at the time of his father death. He was not entitled to be enrolled in service excerpts. In the cross-
examination he has admitted that the claimant‘s name is there in his father service excerpts and he has denied that the
claimant is entitled to get job on compassionate ground.
17.
As regards the documentary evidence of the Management, Exhibit M-1 is the Circular dated 6/24.01.2004 of
the BCCL and according to this circular, no petition for dependent employment will be entertained after 18 months
from the date of death or disablement. Exhibit M-2 is the photo copy of Service Excerpts of Late Ganauri Bhuia and
on its perusal it transpires that the name of Budhni Bhuini has been mentioned as wife and the name of claimant
Bhola Bhuia has been mentioned as son in the column of relationship. Exhibit M-3 is the photo copy of service
excerpts of Budhni Bhuini and on its perusal it transpires that the name of Bhola Bhuia has been mentioned in the
column of nominee as well as in the column of her son. Exhibit M-4 is related to the nominee of Ganauri Bhuia
regarding his P.F in which the name of his mother has been mentioned which is not relevant for this instant issue.
Exhibit M-5 is the letter of Project Officer/Manager of Bagdigi Colliery written to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad regarding employment to Sri Bhola Bhuia and on its perusal it transpires that it has
been mentioned therein that Ganauri Bhuia was Ex-employee of Bagdigi Colliery and he died on 13.03.1994 and at
that time the age of Bhola Bhuia was 9 years and so at that stage the employment could not be given to the dependent
of Ganauri Bhuia being belated case and it was prayed to close the conciliation. Exhibit M-6 is the letter dated
25.08.2003 written by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad to the Secretary Government of India of
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi regarding information on failure of the conciliation report.
18.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence of the claimant, Bhola Bhuia as well as the
management (Exhibit W-2, M-2) it is established that the claimant, Bhola Bhuia was the son of Late Ganauri Bhuia,
Ex-employee of BCCL and there was relationship of father and son between them and the oral and empty claim of the
management that the claimant, Bhola Bhuia has filed an affidavit for employment mentioning the name of his father
as Dwarika Bhuia has not been supported by any documentary evidence and therefore this claim is out rightly brushed
aside. Secondly the oral and empty claim of the management that Budhni Bhuini has declared herself to be wife of
Dwarika Bhuia in other documents is also not supported by any documentary evidence before this Tribunal and
therefore this claim is also out rightly brushed aside.
19.
Now as regard the entitlement of the claimant, Bhola Bhuia for dependent job in place of his father Late
Ganauri Bhuia after his death on 13.03.1994, the claimant has simply claimed that at the time of death of his father
Ganauri Bhuia he was teenager and after reaching the age of 18 years he had applied for employment which was
regretted by the higher authority of the BCCL but he has nowhere disclosed either in pleading or in evidence as to
what was his actual age or date of birth at the time of death of his father and on which date he attained the age of
majority ie 18 years and on which date thereafter he filed his representation before the BCCL for dependent
employment and whatever he has mentioned in his pleading and evidence on this crucial point, that is all cryptic and
vague. Not only this, he has not also taken any pain to file a copy of representation or any date of birth certificate,
Aadhar Card etc from his side.
On the other hand, the management has regretted the claim of dependent employment of the claimant Bhola
Bhuia stating that at the time of death of Ganauri Bhuia NCWA-V was applicable (agreement covered period from 1
July,1991 to June 30,1996) and as per the same in case of death either in mine accident or for other reasons or medical
unfitness under clause 9.4.0, if no employment has been offered and the male dependent of the concerned worker is
15 years and above in age, he will be kept on a live Roster and would be provided employment commensurate with
his skill and qualification when attains the age of 18 years. Here in the instant case though the claimant has not stated
anything and kept mum on the point as to what was the actual age of the claimant at the time of death of his father
Ganauri Bhuia but on perusal of Ext M-5 which has been submitted from the side of the management, it transpires
that at the time of death of the Ex-employee Ganauri Bhuia the age of Bhola Bhuia was 9 years. Though on perusal of
Exhibit M-2 and Exhibit W-2 it appears that at the time of preparation of the service excerpts the age of the claimant,
Bhola Bhuia was 2 years but these documents are so illegible that it is very difficult to scan the date of preparation of
these documents.
20.
On the basis of above discussions this Tribunal finds that at the time of death of Ganauri Bhuia, the age of
Bhola Bhuia was only 9 years and so he was not put on live Roster as per the provisions of NCWA V and therefore
there is no question of consideration of his employment on compassionate ground and secondly, admittedly after
attaining majority, the claimant Bhola Bhuia filed his claim for dependent employment (though no copy of the claim
application has been filed) which was highly time barred and on that ground his claim was rightly regretted by the
BCCL because this is settled principle of law that the compassionate appointment is given to provide immediate
financial assistance to a family facing sudden crisis and financial destitution due to the death or medical invalidation
of the primary bread winner whereas Exhibit M-3 proves that the mother of the claimant Budhni Bhuini was also
BCCL employee and she was appointed on 23.11.1981 about 13 years prior to the death of Ganauri Bhuia and
therefore there is no question of any financial destitution of family due to the death of Ganauri Bhuia and for these
reasons the claim of the claimant, Bhola Bhuia for compassionate appointment is not at all sustainable in the
eye of law.
7734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
21.
Thus, on the basis of above appreciations of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and the reasons
stated above this Tribunal finds that the claim of the claimant Bhola Bhuia for compassionate appointment is not
sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is held that the action of the management of Bagdigi Colliery of M/s.
BCCL in not providing dependent employment to Sri Bhola Bhuia, S/o- Late Ganauri Bhuia, Loader under the
provisions of NCWA is quite justified and legal and he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered
accordingly.
Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour& Employment, Government of
India, New Delhi for information and notification.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 29 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2262.—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 (a05/2020-21) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-आईआर (बी-I)-149]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 29th December, 2025
S.O. 2262.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 05/2020-21) 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)-149]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/Appln. /05/2020-21
Date: 07.11.2025.
Party No.1:
The State Bank of India & 5 others,
State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400032
V/s.
Party No.2: 1. The State Bank of India Staff Union (Mumbai Circle),
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, S. V. Patel Road,
Road, Nagpur – 440001
2. Vajrabodhi s/o Ramchandra Meshram
3. Kamal Lakhi Rangwani
4. Smt. Ratna w/o Prashant Dhorey
5. Rajendra s/o Radheshyam
6. Milind s/o. Madhukar Wasnik
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 and the applicant Vajrabodhi s/o Ramchandra Meshram & 4 others for
adjudication vide case No. CGIT/NGP/APPL./05/2020-21 with the following issues framed: -
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7735
―Whether the service conditions of the applicants 1. Vajrabodhi s/o Ramchandra Meshram, 2. Kamal
Lakhi Rangwani, 3. Smt. Ratna w/o Prashant Dhorey, 4. Rajendra s/o Radheshyam and 5. Milind s/o.
Madhukar Wasnik changed during the pendency of conciliation proceedings? 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 1. Vajrabodhi s/o Ramchandra Meshram
2. Kamal Lakhi Rangwani
3. Smt. Ratna w/o Prashant Dhorey
4. Rajendra s/o Radheshyam
5. Milind s/o. Madhukar Wasnik are not entitled to any relief‖
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2263.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार एयरपोटड अथॉररटी ऑफ इंजडया; मेससड ओमेगा एंटरप्राइजेज; मेससड ओलंजपया टेक पाकड (चेन्नई) प्राइवेट
जलजमटेड; मेससड मीनांबक्कम ररयल्टी प्राइवेट जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और चेन्नई एयरपोटड कॉन्रजक्ट वकडसड
यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 54/2023) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-11011/03/2022-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2263.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 54/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Airport Authority of India; M/s Omega Enterprises; M/s Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd.;
M/s Meenambakkam Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Chennai Airport Contract Workers Union which was received along
with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. L-11011/03/2022-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 54/2023
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 26-11-2025
The Secretary,
Chennai Airport Contract Workers Union,
No.72, A, MGR Street, Karunidhi Nagar,
Ullagaram, Chennai- 600 091
:
1st Party/Petitioner
7736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
1.
The Airport Director,
The Airport Authority of India,
Chennai Airport, Commercial Department,
Meenabakkam, Chennai – 600 027 : 2nd Party / 1st Respondent
2.
The Authorized Signatory,
M/s Omega Enterprises,
Room No.106, Building No.5, Ganeshwadi CHS,
Opp. Akruthi Towers, Bhim Nagar MIDC,
Antheri, Mumbai – 400 093
: 2nd Party / 2nd Respondent
3.
The Authorized Signatory,
M/s Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Pvt Ltd.,
No.1, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032
: 2nd Party / 3rd Respondent
4.
The Authorized Signatory,
M/s Meenambakkam Realty Pvt Ltd.,
No.1, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032
: 2nd Party / 4th Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: None
For the 2nd Party/1st Respondent
: M/s. R. Parthiban, Adv
For the 2nd Party/2nd Respondent
: M/s. C. Kasirajan, Adv
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-11011/03/2022-IR(M),
dated 17.07.2023 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―1. Whether the dispute raised by Chennai Airport Contract Worker‘s Union vide their representation dated
20.06.2022 i.r.o. 123 workers against the management of Airports Authority of India, Chennai / M/s Omega
Enterprises, Mumbai / Olympia Tech Park Private Limited, Chennai is industrial dispute under ID Act, 1947?
2. If yes at S.No.1 above, whether the claim of Chennai Airport Contract Worker‘s Union vide their representation
dated 20.06.2022 that the contractual arrangement between the contractor and the management of Airports Authority
of India, Chennai for engagement of 123 workers (list enclosed) is sham and nominal is proper, legal and justified? If
yes, to what reliefs as sought vide letter under reference the disputant union/workers are entitled and what directions,
if any are necessary in the matter?‖
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 31.10.2023 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 54/2023 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
31.10.2023. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further
adjournments to 02.01.2024, 05.08.2025 and 03.10.2025. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the First and Second
Respondents files their Vakalat Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the
reference dated 17.07.2023 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all
the opposite parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in
the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to
18.11.2025. The Petitioner did not turn up nor was any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf present.
The claim statement was not furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. The R3 and R4 were not present, whereas R1
and R2 were present. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim
statement and documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which
would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7737
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with
the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government,
as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2264.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससड भारत पेरोजलयम कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और उनके कमडचारी के बीच अनुबंध
में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, धनबाद, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 44/2007) को जजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. एल-30012/10/2007-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2264.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 44/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. L-30012/10/2007– IR (M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) & (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947
Reference Case No. 44/2007
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., Dhanbad
AND
Their Workmen
Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers :-Sri V.K. Pandey, Ld. Advocate
For the workmen :- Sri Pintu Mondal, Ld. Representative
State : Jharkhand.
Industry:-Petroluem
Dated 02/12/2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Government Of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No.L-30012/10/2007 (IR(M)) dated 27/08/2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer i.e. management of M/s. BPCL, Dhanbad and their workman through Secretary, Jharkhand Janta
Mazdoor Union, Saraidhela, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:
7738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of BPCL, Dhanbad Depot in terminating the services of
Sri GholtuTuri, who worked (as Heavy Vehicle Driver) from October, 1989 to 18/10/2002 without
following the provisions of ID Act, 1947 is just, legal and fair? If not, what relief the workman is
entitled to?‖
2.
The case of the workman as per the written statement filed on 06.04.2011 is that the workman
concerned was a permanent employee of BPCL, Dhanbad Depot and he was appointed in the year 1989 and he
rendered continuous service with unblemished record till 18.10.2002 when the management terminated his service in
utter violation of principles of natural justice without assigning any reason. In the year 1989 the name of the workman
concerned was sponsored by the Employment Exchange of Government of Bihar and he was invited by the
management of BPCL to appear in the written test cum interview for Heavy Vehicle Driver. Accordingly he appeared
and after written test he was declared successful and then invited for personal interview and after the interview he was
declared successful and the management appointed him and since then he was working as Heavy Vehicle Driver till
the management terminated his services illegally. He was paid wages by the management on monthly rate prescribed
by the management from time to time. He was paid ex-gratia payment according to the rules of the management. He
worked continuously for 13 years but even then the management terminated his services without following the
mandatory provisions of Certified Standing Orders of the company as well as the mandatory provisions of the I.D.
Act, 1947. Just to deprive him from legitimate right and benefits the management made some paper arrangements and
showing him as casual employees which is a camouflage to conceal the real issue. Although he was reporting for his
duties regularly without any break but just to deprive him from legitimate right, the management created some
artificial break in his record. He has acquired all the status of a permanent workman and his termination from service
amounts to unfair labour practice. He was not issued any charge sheet or show cause notice before terminating his
services which is against the principles of natural justice and therefore he is entitled to be reinstated with full back
wages and other consequential benefits and it was prayed to hold the action of the management of M/s. BPCL,
Dhanbad Depot in terminating the services of the workman Sri GholtuTuri is not just and also illegal.
3.
On the other hand the case of the management as per the written statement filed on 25.08.2011 is that
the reference itself is bad in law and not maintainable as GholtuTuri was never a permanent employee of the
Corporation and so he can not be terminated by the Corporation from his services. As per the common practice
prevalent throughout all the industries, casual workmen are intermittently engaged to cater to either sudden spurt of
increased workload or to cater in continuity of work in the event of any planned/unplanned leave of permanent
workmen. The question is how many days in a year such casual engagement of Sri GholtuTuri was done by the
Corporation. It is worthwhile to mention that such engagements were much below 240 days in a year and particulars
of the same are as follows:-
Year
Number of Days engaged
1989-90
67
1990-91
30
1991-92
108
1992-93
155
1993-94
167.5
1994-95
149
1995-96
192.5
1996-97
184
1997-98
119
1998-99
109
1999-2000
135
2000-01
128
From the above, it is evident that Sri GholtuTuri has worked occasionally and intermittently and there was never any
continuous nature of work for which he was engaged in a year. It would also be clear from the above details that Sri
Turi never worked for 240 days or more in a year. The workman‘s engagement was purely need based and procedure
followed towards such engagement was as follows:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7739
That every temporary need for casual workma was notified with the concerned Employment Exchange to sponsor the
names of candidates for empanelment as casuals with intimation that such engagement would depend upon casual
need against absenteeism of permanent workmen only. We also obtained sponsorship from the District Employment
Exchange with clear message to the Employment Exchange that some of the persons sponsored by them would be
engaged by us purely as casual workmen. In other words, engagement of any person for work of casual nature does
not entail any employment offer by the corporation in its permanent cadre and this fact is also very well known to Sri
GholtuTuri who performed the casual nature of job in the corporation with full knowledge of the status of his
employment.
The corporation being declared as a public utility services as per Section 2 (n) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 as
well as amongst the list of industries involving Hazardous Processes as per First Schedule of the Factory Act, 1948
handling highly inflammable liquids, it is imperative for the Corporation to check the suitability of the candidates
regarding their fitness for empanelment as casuals to ensure safety of its Depot/Location and the properties contained
therein. Sri GholtuTuri was empanelled as Casual after carrying out due process of suitability verification, keeping
safety aspect in mind.
Sri GhotuTuri was engaged as casual nature of work depending upon the emergent work requirements. He was
engaged intermittently and was paid in line with the work carried out by him. The casual engagement was
discontinued in the year 2002 since casual nature of work requirement was tapered off. After October 2002 he was not
re-engaged since there was no requirement in the establishment.
In these premises the question of alleged termination of service does not arise since there was no formal letter of
appointment issued to him as a permanent workman in the Corporation.
The Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & OrsVs.
Uma devi and Ors has strongly turned down such demands by the casuals. Similarly in case of Union of India &
OrsVs. A.S. Pillai & Ors and State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Daya Lal & Ors, the same thing was held. It has been
denied that the workman was permanent employee of the Corporation at Dhanbad Depot. It has also been denied that
he was working as General workman till the management terminated his service. It has also denied that the workman
acquired all status of a permanent workman. The allegations of termination of service are totally baseless as no
appointment letter was ever issued to the workman and he was engaged as casual labourer. It is stated that engaging
casuals as per temporary requirement is prevalent in all industries and the Corporation followed the said process
subject to its discretion to engage casuals against absenteeism or sudden spurt of work. The question of issuing charge
sheet by the Corporation does not arise at all as the workman concerned is not permanent employee in the
Corporation. His reinstatement is also absolutely irrelevant and misconception of law and facts. The Corporation
denies that the relief sought by the union is legal or justified. It has further denied that the union or the casual
workman involved in the reference are entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the reference.
4.
On perusal of the case record it transpires that the concerned workman died during the pendency of this case
and in his place his son LakhanTuri has been substituted for the purpose of this case.
5.
A rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the workman to the W/S filed by the management in which the
workman has denied almost all stand taken by the management in his W/S stating that the workman has worked
continuously without any break.
6.
In support of the case of the workman, LakhanTuri has been examined as WW-1.
7.
In his support the workman has adduced the following documentary evidence :-
Exhibit W-1 – Letter dated 27.07.1989 to the workman GholtuTuri for written test cum interview.
Exhibit W-2 –Letter dated 18.10.1989 to Sri GholtuTuri from the side of the BPCL to call upon with all the
documents regarding educational qualification, date of birth etc. for casual labour.
Exhibit W-3 – A copy of Attendance Sheet of April, 1990.
Exhibit W-4 – Copy of payment of Ex-Gratia to casual workmen for 2000-2001.
Exhibit W-5 – Copy of Ex-Gratia payment from 01.04.1992 to 31.03.1993.
Exhibit W-6 – Letter dated 07.08.1983 of the BPCL, Dhanbad Depot to CPM/Calcutta regarding casual
employment.
Exhibit W-7 – Photo copy of Aadhaar Card of LakhanTuri.
Exhibit W-8 – Photo copy of Electoral I.D. Card of LakhanTuri.
Exhibit W-9 – Photo copy of family list certificate.
Exhibit W-10 – Death Certificate of the workman GholtuTuri.
7740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
On the other hand the management has examined MW-1 Sonam Rajgaria.
9.
By way of documentary evidence the management has got exhibited the monthly attendance of the workman
GholtuTuri and others as M-1 Series.
10.
Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
11.
The Ld. Representative of the workman has submitted that the workman GholtuTuri was appointed
by the BPCL in the year 1989 after taking written examination as well as interview but he was illegally terminated on
18.10.2002 by the management without assigning any reason. He had rendered continuous service with unblemished
record. He was also paid ex-gratia payment during his service period and thus he had acquired all the status of
permanent workman but without following the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 he was illegally terminated by the
management and prayed to set aside the termination order and pass award for reinstatement of the workman with
consequential benefits and back wages.
12.
On the other hand the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the management has submitted that the workman
was appointed by the management purely as casual workman only to cater the increased workload as well as
continuity in the work in the event of leave of a permanent workman and secondly GholtuTuri had not completed 240
days in any of the year of his employment since 1989-90 to 2000-01 and therefore he is not entitled for any relief
under the I.D. Act. He has also relied on and cited judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of State of
Karnataka & Ors Vs. Uma devi and Ors and prayed to reject the reference.
13.
Issue
Whether the action of the management of BPCL, Dhanbad Depot in terminating the services of Sri
GholtuTuri, who worked (as Heavy Vehicle Driver) from October, 1989 to 18/10/2002 without following the
provisions of ID Act, 1947 is just, legal and fair? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
14.
As regards the oral testimony of WW-1 LakhanTuri who is the son of Late GholtuTuri, the original
workman in this case, has deposed that his father was working as Heavy Vehicle Driver at Dhanbad Depot of M/s.
BPCL and he was appointed in the year 1989 but his service was illegally terminated w.e.f. 18.10.2002. He was
illegally retrenched from the service of the Company without payment of retrenchment compensation whereas he had
completed 240 days of attendance each and every year and therefore the termination is illegal and unjustified and he is
entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. In his cross-examination he has stated that his father was working
under BPCL since 13 years. He has also admitted that his father was a casual worker. Hence no appointment letter
was issued to him.
15.
Now as regard the documentary evidence of the workman, on perusal of Exhibit W-1 it transpires that this is
a letter dated 27.07.1989 issued from the side of the management to the workman GholtuTuri for his written test cum
interview for Heavy Vehicle Driver II and he was called for interview on 08.08.1989 with direction to bring original
documents/testimonials regarding age, educational & Technical qualification etc. Exhibit W-2 clearly shows that this
is a letter dated 18.10.1989 to Sri GholtuTuri from the side of the management regarding casual labour and he was
called on 30.10.1989 with all the documents/testimonials as required in W-1. Exhibit W-3 is a photo copy of the
attendance sheet of the month of April 1990 and on its perusal it transpires that the attendance of GholtuTuri have
been marked in it. Exhibit W-4 and W-5 are related to the Ex-gratia payment for casual workman for the period 2000-
01 and 01.04.1992 to 31.03.1993 that also bears the name of the workman GholtuTuri along with others. Exhibit W-6
shows that this is a letter dated 07.08.1983 written to CPM/Calcutta from the side of the management regarding casual
employment of the workman GholtuTuri and others. Exhibit W-7 is the photo copy of Aadhaar Card of LakhanTuri.
Exhibit W-8 is the photo copy of Electoral Identity Card of LakhanTuri, the son of GholtuTuri. Exhibit W-9 is the
Family List Certificate and on its perusal it transpires that the name of LakhanTuri has been shown as the son and
Fulwa Devi has been shown as the wife of GholtuTuri. Exhibit W-10 is the Death Certificate of the workman
GholtuTuri and on its perusal it transpires that the date of death is mentioned as 08.04.2011.
16.
Now as regards the oral testimony of MW-1 Sonam Rajgaria, She has deposed that workman was engaged as
casual employee in their organization. The casual workers are engaged to fill leave vacancy either short or long. They
were never engaged in any previous year for a period of 240 days or more. In the cross-examination she had admitted
that after receiving the name of the workmen for employment exchange they went for medical and fitness test and
found fit. He was given job since 1989 as casual employee and they worked upto Oct 2002 but not continuously. She
has denied that the workman completed service more than 240 days in the year 1993, 1998 and 1999. She has also
stated that she cannot say whether any letter issued to the workman not to come to work.
17.
Now, as regards the documentary evidence of the management, on perusal of Exhibit M-1 series it transpires
that these are the photo copies of the attendance register in 37 pages in which the attendance of the workman
GholtuTuri has been marked.
18.
On perusal of the oral testimony of WW-1 LakhanTuri as well as MW-1 Sonam Rajgaria as also on perusal
of Exhibit W-2, W-4 and W-5 it is crystal clear that GholtuTuri was appointed as casual workman in BPCL, Dhanbad
Depot and admittedly he worked since 1989 to 2002 for about 13 years as Heavy Vehicle Driver. The representative
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7741
of the workman has claimed and pleaded that GholtuTuri completed more than 240 days of work in every calendar
year but he has failed to adduce any such documentary evidence in support of his claim. On the other hand the
management has pleaded that during his entire service tenure the workman did not work 240 days in any of the
calendar year since 1989 to 2002 and he has also described the same in Tabular Chart in Para-4 of the W/S and in
support of the same, the management has also adduced Exhibit M-1 Series and on its perusal also it transpires that the
workman never completed 240 days of the work in any of the calendar year during his entire tenure of service and the
payment of Ex-gratia is a voluntary gesture of goodwill and made without legal obligation or admission of liability. It
is separate from wages and does not establish a permanent employment relationship. A casual workman who has not
completed 240 days of his service in the preceding 12 months is not entitled to the benefit under Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 like Section 25F retrenchment compensation and thus he has no relief available under the Act even if he is
terminated without notice as claimed by the workman. The legal protection under the I.D. Act for retrenchment
including notice period or pay in lieu, are for the employees who have completed one year of continuous service i.e.
240 days which is pre-requisite for claiming protection under the Act and if this condition is not met, the workman
does not qualify for the benefit intended for employees with continuous service of at least one year.
19.
Thus, on the basis of the above discussions of facts, circumstances and evidences available on the case
record this Tribunal finds and holds that the action of the management of BPCL, Dhanbad Depot in terminating the
services of Sri GholtuTuri, who worked (as Heavy Vehicle Driver) from October, 1989 to 18/10/2002 without
following the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 is just, legal and fair and the workman is not entitled to the benefit under
the provision of I.D. Act, 1947. The reference is answered accordingly.
Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour& Employment, Government of India,
New Delhi for information and notification.
SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2265.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार जबरला कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड; मेससड एच.आर. कॉन्रजक्टसड; मेससड आर.आर. स्ट्टील फजजिकेटसड; मेससड बजसवारा
जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और मेससड आर.आर. स्ट्टील फजजिकेटसड के कमडचारी श्री सुधीर ससह,
मेससड एच.आर. कॉन्रजक्टर के कमडचारी श्री संदीप सोनकर, मेससड बजसवारा जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के कमडचारी श्री एस.एन.
जतवारी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 29/2021) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-29011/04/2021-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2265.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Birla Corporation Limited; M/s H.R. Contractors; M/s R.R. Steel Fabricators; M/s Baiswara Security
Agency and Shri Sudhir Singh Worker of M/s R.R. Steel Fabricators, Shri Sandeep Sonkar Worker of
M/s H.R. Contractor, Shri S.N. Tiwari Worker of M/s Baiswara Security Agency which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. L-29011/04/2021– IR (M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
MISC APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2022
&
MISC APPLICATION NO.02 OF 2023
I.D. No. 29/2021
Ref. No. L-29011/4/2021-IR (M) dated: 12.02.2021
7742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
BETWEEN
1. Shri Sudhir Singh
Representative of worker of M/s R.R. Steel Fabricators
Raebareli (UP
2. Shri Sandeep Sonkar
Representative of workers of M/s H.R. Contractor
Raebareli (UP)
3. Shri S.N. Tiwari
Representative of workers of M/s Baiswara Security Agency
Reebareli (UP)
AND
1. The General Manager
Birla Corporation Limited
Raebareli (UP)
2. The Occupier
Birla Corporation Limited
Raebareli (UP)
3. M/s H.R. Contractors, C/o
Birla Corporation Limited
Raebareli (UP)
4. M/s R.R. Steel Fabricators, C/o
Birla Corporation Limited
Raebareli (UP)
5. M/s Baiswara Security Agency, C/o
Birla Corporation Limited
Raebareli (UP)
AWARD
By order No. L-29011/4/2021-IR (M) dated: 12.02.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 36A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:
"WHETHER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.2020 MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
CONTRACT WORKMEN SH. SUDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF
SETTLEMENT DATED 11.09.2020 IN TERMS OF ENHANCEMENT OF WAGES W.E.F. 01.08.2020 &
PAYMENT OF COMPULSORY HOLIDAYS/NATIONAL HOLIDAYS RULES AND CONDITIONS (3 TIMES
IN CASE THE WORK PERFORMED BY THE WORKMEN) AGAINST M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.
ARE PROPER & LEGALLY JUSTIFIED? IF SO, AS TO WHAT RELIEF THE CONTRACT WORKMEN
ARE ENTITLED TO?"
Accordingly, an Industrial Dispute No. 29/2021 has been registered on 01.03.2021.
An award dated 27.09.2022, has been passed, relevant portion quoted herein below:-
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Thereafter on behalf of claimant in application dated 29|30/09/2022, for recall of the award dated 27.09.2022 has been
moved, registered as MISC application no. 01/2022 on behalf of respondent, an objection has been filed on
27.03.2023, (MISC Application no.02/2023).
The award dated 27.09.2022, was recall and the ID case was disclose to its number.
Inspite of notice none appeared on behalf of the workman,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7743
I heard Shri AK. Singh learned counsel for respondent, and perused the record.
From the perusal of record the petition emerged out in last several days i.e. 03.07.2023, 16.10.2023, 05.12.2023,
22.03.2024, 03.07.2024, and time was granted to file claim statement.
On 24.09.2024, the matter was fixed for ex parte hearing as the claimant has not filed a claim statement.
Moreover on 24.12.2024, an order was passed, relevant portion quoted herein below:-
None for claimant in revised list
Shri AK. Singh for respondent
Further one more last opportunity is granted for claim statement.
List on 24.03.2025.
Thereafter on 08.06.2025, an order was passed, relevant portion quoted herein below:-
None for claimant in revised list
Shri AK. Singh for respondent
Opportunity to file claim statement is closed
List on 29.09.2025, for ex parte hearing.
Today when the matter was taken up neither workman is appeared for any claim statement has been filed.
FINDINGS & CONCLUSION:
After hearing the learned counsel and taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been
filed by the claimant in order to establish his claim as per the reference dated 12.02.2021. So in view of the said facts,
as well as the law laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others
1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
"It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must
also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce
evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he
would not be entitled to any relief."
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees' Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
"The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38
and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on
behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail
if no evidence is led."
And by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum- G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
"The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed. A
perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led by the
respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed."
As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable to be
dismissed.
AWARD
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow,
1st October 2025.
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
7744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2266.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार लाइफ इन्सुरेंस कारपोरेिन ऑफ़ इंजडया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री धनेि कुमार चौरवाडे के बीच
अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 24/2021)
को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025
को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-167]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2266.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2021) 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri Dhanesh Kumar Choourwade which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-167]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2021
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
1. Shri Dhanesh Kumar Choourwade,
Ward Number 5, Barej Patti, Lanji,
Disstt. Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh)
Workman
Vs
1.
The Senior Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Madan Mahal, Nagpur Road, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh
2.
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Ambedkar Chowk, Balaghat (M.P.)
3.
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Satelite Branch-SSO-Lanji, Disstt. Balaghat (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 18th day of November, 2025)
As per letter dated 18/03/2021 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per
Notification No. J-1(5-1)/2021-IR dt. 18/03/2021. The dispute under reference relates to:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7745
―क्या प्रबॊधन वररष्ठ प्रबॊधक, भारतीय जीवन बीमा ननगम, जबऱऩुर व शाखा प्रबॊधक, भारतीय जीवन बीमा ननगम,
बाऱाघाट एवॊ श्री धनेश चोरवाडे श्रममक के मध्य औद्यौगगक वववाद है? यदद हाॉ तब क्या कगित रुऩ से प्रबॊधन के मौखखक
आदेश व्दारा श्री धनेश चोरवाडे को कायय ऩर न रखकर उसके स्िान ऩर ककसी अन्य व्यक्क्त को कायय ऩर रखते हुए उसका
(धनेश चोरवाडे) सेवा से ननष्कासन क्या न्यायोगचत है? यदद नह ॊ तो आवेदक ककस अनुतोष का अगधकार है ?"
The case of the workman is that, he was appointed as a labour by management of LIC on 01.04.2009 and
worked continuously till 01.04.2017 when he was disengaged without any notice or compensation which is against
the act.
Case of management is that, he was a daily wager engaged on as and when required basis who never
worked for 240 days in any year. He worked for only 1 month in 2009, 9 months in 2010, 12 months in 2011, 5
months in 2004, 1 month in 2014, 6 months in 2015, 4 months in 2016 and 2 months in 2017. It is also the case of the
management that he was an outsourced employee deputed by the outsourcing agency. He became mentally unstable
and the outsourcing agency was asked by management to replace him. The outsourcing agency replaced the workman
and deputed some other person. Thus, according to management, the workman was not employed by them. Hence
there is no question of his disengagement by management of LIC.
In evidence, the workman did not appear and did not file any evidence. Management filed an affidavit of its
witness as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-examined by workman side.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Praveen Yadav, Learned Counsel for
Management of LIC, Mr. Amitabh Bharti. I have gone through the record as well.
The reference itself is the issue for determination.
The initial burden to prove his case that firstly, he was appointed by the LIC and secondly, he worked for
240 days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement as well also that he was disengaged by LIC is on
workman. He has not filed any evidence in this respect. Hence, he is held to have failed in discharging this burden. On
the other hand, management witness has corroborated the case of LIC and there is nothing in his cross-examination to
discredit him.
Hence, on the basis of above discussion and findings, holding the claim of the workman not proved, the
reference stands answered against the workman.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 18-11-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2267.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार खजुराहो पयडटन; जेट एयरवेज़ (इंजडया) जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री बाबूलाल रायकवार के
बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 54/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-168]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2267.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 54/2022) 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 Khajuraho Tours; Jet Airways (India) Ltd. and Shri Babulal Raikwar which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-168]
SALONI, Dy. Director
7746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/54/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
1. Shri Babulal Raikwar
S/o Late Chiddi Raikwar,
Sewagram, Near Surai Temple,
Distt. Khajuraho, Chattarpur,
Madhya Pradesh - 471001
Workman
Vs
1. The General Manager,
Khajuraho Tours,
Bamitha Road, Distt. Khajuraho,
Chattarpur, Madhya Pradesh-471001
2. The Station Manager.
Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Airport,
Khajuraho Airport, Distt. Khajuraho,
Chattarpur, Madhya Pradesh-471001
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 7th day of November, 2025)
As per letter dated 28/10/2022 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per
Notification No. J-8(27-B)/2018-ALC dt. 28/10/2022. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Management of Khajuraho Tours Khajuraho through its proprietor/Manager
and Jet airways Airlines through its Station Manager in terminating the services of Shri Babulal Raikwar
S/o Late Chiddi Raikwar, Ex- Casual Labour (UAN No.100104742220, who was appointed on 1/1/2000
and continuously worked more than 16 years up to 1/5/2017) without complying with the relevant
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled and from which date?”
The case of the workman is mainly that, he worked in the establishment of M/s Jet Airways Airlines at
Khajuraho Airport as an employee of M/s Khajuraho Tours since 01.01.2020 till date of his disengagement on
12.02.2019 as helper. He was retrenched without any notice or compensation which is in violation of section 25-F and
25-G of the Act. This is unfair labour practice adopted by the management, hence the action of management is unjust,
illegal and arbitrary. He has further alleged that his work was of permanent and perennial nature involving loading
and unloading of cargo. He raised dispute against his retrenchment before the concerned Labour Commissioner who
refused to refer the dispute. Thereafter he filed a writ petition No. 9124/2019 before Hon‘ble High Court of M.P. and
it was under order of Hon‘ble High Court on 12.02.2019, the reference was made to this Tribunal. He has prayed that
holding his disengagement against law, he be held entitled to be reinstated with all back wages and benefits.
Case of M/s Khajuraho Tours, who appeared and filed its written statement of defense , is that the
workman was engaged by them and was deputed to work with the establishment of M/s Jet Airways Airlines in
outsourcing contract, which was allotted by M/s Jet Airways Airlines to M/s Khajuraho Tours. He worked till 30
April, 2017 and submitted his resignation on 30.04.2017. He had been given all his dues including provident fund
after his resignation was accepted since, then he left the institution of M/s Khajuraho Tours. Hence, there is no
occasion of termination of his services as claimed by him.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7747
The management of M/s Khajuraho Tours has prayed that the reference be answered against the workman.
None appeared for M/s Jet Airways Airlines inspite of service.
During pendency, the workman died and his legal representative, his widow was substituted in his place.
In evidence, the workman did not prove any document, no affidavit from the side of the workman was filed
in support to his case.
M/s Khajuraho Tours has filed affidavit of its partner Jitendra Lavaniya as his Examination-in-chief, he was
cross-examined by workman side. The management proved photocopy of resignation of the workman as Ex-M/1.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the workman Mrs. Poonam Daharwal, Learned Counsel for
the Management was not available at the time of argument, they did not file any written argument. I have gone
through the record also.
The initial burden to prove his case lies on the workman in absence of his any proved document or statement
on oath, he is held to have failed in discharging this burden. On the other hand, the management witness has
corroborated their case and proved the resignation letter of the workman, there is nothing in cross-examination of the
management witness to discredit him.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, holding the claim of the workman not proved, the reference
deserves to be answered as follows:-
AWARD
“Holding the action of the Management of Khajuraho Tours Khajuraho through its proprietor/Manager
in terminating the services of Shri Babulal Raikwar S/o Late Chiddi Raikwar, Ex- Casual Labour
(UAN No. 100104742220, fair, legal and justified, he is held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 07-11-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2268.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससड भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम कमडचारी
संघ के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स
न.- 24/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ
30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. एल-17011/05/2022-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2268.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2022) 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 M/s Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam and Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Karmachari Sangh which was received
along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. L-17011/05/2022-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
7748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/24/2022
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd)
The General Secretary,
Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Karmachari Sangh,
594/8, Nehru Nagar, M.I.G. Thana Main Raod,
Indore (M.P.) - 452011
Workman
Versues
The General Manager,
M/s Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam,
Central Regional Office,
B, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.) - 452060
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 12th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 25/05/2022 of 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- 17011/05/2022 (IR(M)) dt. 25/02/2022. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the demand of the Madhya Pradesh Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Karmachari Sangh (Intuc)
Indore, M.P. for temporary allowance to workers working in the management M/s Bhartiya Jeevan Bima
Nigam is legal, fair and justified? If not, what other relief the workmen are entitled to?”
After registering the case on the basis of reference Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared
and filed their respective statement of claim and defense.
Case of the Workman union is mainly that, they are a registered union under the Trade Union Act affiliated
INTUC bearing Registration No. 6892 and the General Secretary of the Union has been authorized to prosecute the
claim on behalf of its workers who are working in different branches of the Management of LIC (Life Insurance
Corporation) as temporary employees against vacant and regular posts since 2017 continuously and regularly. For the
job which are permanent and perennial in nature. They are being paid their wages on the basis of wages fixed by the
Central Government for Daily Employees on monthly basis. They have been extended benefits of ESIC etc. which
they are affiliating. On February 15, 1987 guidelines issued by Central Office of LIC according to which the
temporary employees who were employed for month or more, were directed to be paid same wages as drawn by the
regular employees at minimum of the of the scale applicable to them who have been appointed with LIC for
discharging same nature of duties. The members of the Union are working as sweepers and peons of the LIC. The
Management of LIC in Bhopal region did not extend the benefit of the said Circular, though it was extended to the
same Class of Employees working on temporary basis in Amravati Division. A dispute was raised in this respect by
the Union before the Labour Commissioner which could not be conciliated, hence this reference.
According to Workmen Union this action of Management of LIC Bhopal region in not extending benefits
of the Circular dated 25.02.1987 to the members of the Union who are discharging the same duties of sweepers and
peons as temporary workers which are discharged by the regular appointed sweepers and peons is nothing but illegal,
unjust and arbitrary and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Union has thus prayed that
holding its applicant members who are temporary employees as mentioned above, entitled to same benefit with
respect to pay by way of granting the minimum of pay-scale to its regularly appointed employees discharging the
same duties. The Management of LIC Bhopal Region be directed to grant the same to the applicants.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7749
Workman has filed copy of registration certificate, copy of application and documents submitted by the
Union before the Concerned Labour Commissioner with list of the principle employees, copies of the guidelines dated
25.02.1987 copy of payment vouchers of temporary employees of Amravati and Indore Division.
The case of LIC, as taken by them in their Written Statement of defense, is that they have taken a decision
to outsource all its none core activities all over MP, challenged before the Hon‘ble High Court of MP by the Union
by way of filing Writ Petition No. 17420/2024, and was dismissed after hearing by the Hon‘ble High Court vide its
order dated 17.08.2023 and the decision of discharging for all none core activities by the Management was affirmed.
Hence, at present this work is being done by contractors like Jai Balaji Security etc. and not by the LIC. Hence, the
issue with respect to payment of salary and wages as claimed by the Workman Union loses relevance. According to
the Management, the guidelines issued by the Central Office on 25.02.1987 regarding wages and other conditions
applicable to the temporary workmen were only with respect to the those temporary workmen who were covered
under the Award passed by the National Industrial Tribunal on 17.04.1986 in Reference Case No. NTB-01 of 1985
and was with respect to the temporary workmen who were covered under the said Award. These guidelines have
nothing to do with the present appellants. This is also the case of the Management of LIC that as per order dated
18.01.2011 of Hon‘ble High Court in Civil Appeal No. 953-968/2005 Life Insurance Corporation of India V.s. D.V.
Anil Kumar, one time scheme dated 20.05.2011 was framed and daily wager workers who fulfilled the eligibility
criteria as per this One Time Scheme, were regularized. The rest who were not eligible to be regularized were
discontinued and at present a decision was taken to discharge all none core activities all over M.P. Circle which was
affirmed by Hon‘ble High Court of MP as mentioned above. The Outsourcing Agency has hired the Applicant
Workmen and has deputed them in various offices for cleaning etc. Their wages are paid by Outsourcing Agencies
and not by LIC. Also it has been appealed that, Management of LIC never issued any appointment letter to these
claimants. According to LIC (Life Insurance Corporation of India) benefit of Temporary Instructions 1993 effective
from 28.06.1993 these applicants who worked under the Offices of MP Circle of LIC are not temporary staff because
they are not appointed by any Class- IV post rather they were hired as Daily Wager/Casual Labours. It is further the
case of the Management is that, question of similar treatment to daily wager with temporary staff arise in the light of
the said instructions of 1993.
In the light of these submissions, the issue which arises to be considered is whether the members of
Workmen Union, who are undisputedly the outsourced employees engaged by the Management of LIC, Bhopal
Division through outsourcing agencies, deserve to be treated as temporary employee of LIC or not?
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Rules) 1960, Chapter 2, Clause 5 provides that staff of the
corporation shall be classified as Officers, Development Officers, Supervisors and Clerical Staff and Sub-ordinate
Staff. Clause 8 of the Rules provides for an employment of staff in Class III and Class IV on temporary basis. Since,
the members of the Union are not employed by Management of LIC as temporary staff, rather they are outsourced
employees deputed by Outsourcing Company after employing them, hence they cannot be held to be entitle to the
benefits admissible to the Temporary Employees.
The Circular dated 25.02.1987 is on record. This circular deals with charges of employee workman, part-
time Workman and Badli Workman. These are employed by the LIC itself. Hence, the benefits under the said circular
cannot be granted to those employees who are deputed as outsourced employees with the LIC.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, the claim of the Workman Union with respect to
benefits to the temporary workers working with the Management of LIC Bhopal region as per Circular dated
25.05.1987 has no leg to stand.
Before parting, reference of The Rule 25 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971,
particularly, Rule 25 (v-(a)) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971,is necessary which is
being reproduced requires to be referred to, which is as follows:
“(v)(a) In cases where the workmen employed by the contractor perform the same or similar
kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the
establishment, the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other condition of service of
the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly
employed by the principal employer of the establishment on the same or similar kind of
work:
Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to the type of work
the same shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).”
The Union is at liberty to raise their claim under these Rules before an appropriate forum.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the demand of the Madhya Pradesh Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Karmachari Sangh (INTUC)
Indore, M.P. for temporary allowance to the workers working with Management of M/s Bhartiya Jeevan Bima
Nigam as outsourced employees is held unjustified and the members are held entitled to no relief.
7750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further, they are at liberty to raise their claim before an appropriate forum in the light of Rule 25 (v-(a))
of Contract Labour (Regularization and Abolition) Rules, 1971.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 12/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2269.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार जहरी माइंस सेल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सहदुस्ट्तान स्ट्टील कमडचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि
केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 03/2024) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-170]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2269.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 03/2024) 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 Hirri Mines SAIL and Hindustan Steel Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award
by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-170]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/03/2024
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Mahesh Sen
President, Hindustan Steel Employees Union
(CITU), Post – Hirri Mines,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495222
Workman
Versus
General Manager,
(Agent Mines), Hirri Mines
SAIL, Post – Hirri Mines
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495222
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 17th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 30/11/2023 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Nagpur Incharge-Raipur,
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 RP-5(1-02)/2023-ES-III (IR(DU) dt. 30/11/2023. The dispute under
reference related to:-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7751
“Whether the action on the part of the management of Hirri Mines, SAIL, Bilaspur (CG) in not
promotiong the workman Shri Santosh Kumar Choubey, Sr. Technician to the post of „Master
Technician‟ 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. Workman
side never appeared. 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: 17/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2270.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार
जभलाई स्ट्टील प्लांट; मेससड मााँ दुगाड इंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री जवजेंर एंड अन्य के बीच अनुबंध
में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 07/2025) को जजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-171]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 07/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation
to Bhilai Steel Plant; M/s Maa Durga Enterprises and Shri Vijendra and others which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-171]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/07/2025
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
Vijendra & Others
Qtr No. 38, Street 16, Sector-7
Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh-490006
Workman
Versus
1. The Director
Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhila
Dist. Durg (CG) - 490001
2. M/s. Maa Durga Enterprises,
Plot No. 2, Ekta Chowk, Kailash Nagar
Bhilai, Dist. Durg (CG) - 490023
Management
7752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Passed on this 17th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 20/12/2024 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur, Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is made to this Tribunal under section-10 of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 as per reference number RP-8(3-16)/2024-ES.III dt. 20/12/2024. The dispute under reference related to :-
“Whether the demand of the workmen for reinstatement is justified? If yes, to what all remedies, is the
workmen entitled to in relation to the present industrial disputes? Also, is the demand of lumpsum relief
compensation justified? ”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. Mr. Sahil
Bahadur Singh learned Counsel filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Management. Workman side never appeared.
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: 17/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2271.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार एसीसी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री संजय जतवारी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार
औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 50/2025) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-174]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 50/2025) 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 ACC Limited and Shri Sanjay Tiwari which was received along with soft copy of the award by the
Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-174]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/50/2025
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.( Retd.)
Sanjay Tiwari
Village Tendubhatha, Post Mohgaon
Tehsil Saja Durg, Bemetara
Chhattisgarh - 491993
Workman
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7753
Versus
Chief Plant Manager
ACC Limited, Jamul Cement Works
PO: Jamul Bhilai Durg,
Durg Chhattisgarh-491993
Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 10th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 27/08/2025 by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Nagpur, I/C-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(2-11)/2025-ES-III (ID dt. 27/08/2025. The dispute
under reference related to :-
“1.
Whether Mr. Sanjay Tiwari, Deputy Manager (Grade 0-4) is a workman or not as per Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947.
2.
If answer to 1 is in affirmative then whether the termination from service is legal and justified ?
If no, what relief the applicant, is entitled to ?”
After registering a case on the basis of the reference, notices were sent to the parties and served. Mr. Rahul
Mishra learned Counsel filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Management.
Workman Learned Counsel Mr. Arun Patel filed application with affidavit, seeking permission to
withdraw the reference on the ground that as per legal advice, he may not be a workman under the Act. In the
light of the withdrawal application, the reference becomes infructuous and is answered accordingly. The
applicant is at liberty to approach proper Forum for redressal of his grievance.
DATE: 10/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2272.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार जनवा बूपा हेल्थ इंश्योरेंस कंपनी जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री राघवेंर चौबे के बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जबलपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 28/2023) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ
था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-169]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 28/2023) 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 Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and Shri Raghvendra Choubey which was received along with
soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-169]
SALONI, Dy. Director
7754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/28/2023
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Raghvendra Choubey,
House No. 193 Cinema Gali No. 05,
Bhagat Singh Ward Officer Colony,
Khurai Sagar (M.P.) – 470117
Workman
Versues
The Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited,
Sagar, Distt. Sagar (M.P.0 - 470117
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 17th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 31/03/2023 of 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- 7(8)/2022-ALC dt. 31/03/2023. The dispute under reference relates to:
“1.
Whether Shri Raghvendra Choubey who has worked for less than 240 days in a year shall come
under the definition of workmen to claim for statutory benifits as per Sec 25 (F) given Industrial
Dispute Act?
2.
Whether the action of the Management of Nibha Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. to terminate
the services of Shri Raghvendra Choubey without complying mandatory condition is valid? If not
what relief the workman is entitled for?”
After registering the case on the basis of reference 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 appointed by the Management of M/s Niva Bupa Health
Insurance Company in Sagar Branch as Agency Manager on 26.04.2022 and was terminated from service by
Management on 11.10.2022. He was appointed by the Deputy Vice-president of the Company but his services were
terminated by the Assistant Vice-president which is against Rules. No notice or salary was given to him on
termination. No enquiry was conducted against him before termination of his services. He was not given any
opportunity to defend himself, though he was alleged by Management that he unauthorizedly and willingly absented
himself from work. His job nature was mainly clerical; he was not an appointing authority of anyone, he did not have
authority to sanction leave or to supervise any person. He has prayed that holding the action of Management in
terminating his services bad in law, he be held entitle to be reinstated with back-wages and benefits.
Case of the Management is mainly that, Firstly, the workman was appointed as Agency Manager, he was
in Managerial Cadre, hence is not a workman under the Act, and Secondly, he unauthorizedly and willingly absented
himself from work for which he was issued show-cause notice on mail and he did not appear at his work-place even
he received the mail requiring him to join his job, hence his services were terminated in the light of terms and
conditions mention in the appointment letter, which he agreed before joining in the job. Management had prayed that,
the reference be answered against the Workman.
In evidence, the Workman has filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief, no cross-examination was
conducted by the Management. The Management has filed offer of appointment dated 26.04.2022 with acceptance of
offer, terms of appointment, termination notice dated 11.10.2022. The Workman side has also filed these documents.
The workman side has further filed his mail dated 12.08.2022 alleging allegations on Amit Shukla, the Branch
Manager, this Mail was sent by him through his Mail Id to Pooja Talukdar, copy to Amit Shukla. He also filed
photocopy of another Mail dated 14.01.2022. He also filed photocopy documents with respect to payment to Amit
Shukla and Rishab Dixit which he said that these were in respect to their illegal demands. Management has not filed
any affidavit of any of its witness.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7755
It is to further mention there that, on the request of the Workman, Learned Counsel Mr. Shard Punj was
appointed from the Panel of State Legal Services Authority.
I have heard argument of Legal Panel Counsel. None appeared for Management. I have gone through the
record as well.
The main objection of the Management is that, Firstly, the applicant is not a workman under the Act and
Secondly, his termination was in the light of terms and conditions mention in his offer of appointment which he had
accepted before joining for the reason he willingly and unauthorizedly absented himself from work-place.
Section 2(s) of the Act, which defines Applicant, is being reproduced as follows:
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.……………………….
In the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd. V.s. Ramesh Kumbla and Others reported in
MANU/MH/0073/1999 and another judgment of the same High Court in the case of Union Carbide (India) Ltd.
V.s. D. Samuel and Others reported in MANU/MH/1713/1998. In these two cases, after analyzing the judgment of
various High Courts and Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the Single Bench of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has summarized
the principles on the basis of which it is to be decided whether the Applicant is in supervisory capacity or not. These
tests mentioned in Para 34 and 35 of the Judgment are being reproduced as follows:
Para-34.
In so far as the Apex Court is concerned, some of the tests laid down are:
(1)
Designation is not material but what is important is the nature of work.
(2)
Find out the dominant purpose of employment and not any additional duties the employee may be
performing.
(3)
Can he bind the Company/employer to some kind of decisions on behalf of the
Company/employer.
(4)
Has the employee power to direct or oversee the work of his subordinates.
(5)
Has the power to sanction leave or recommend it; and
(6)
Has he the power to appoint, terminate or take disciplinary action against workmen.
Para-35.
From the judgment of this Court and the other High Courts some of the tests apart from
what the Apex Court has stated are:
(a) Whether the employee can examine the quality of work and whether such work is performed in
satisfactory manner or not;
(b) Does the employee have powers of assigning duties and distribution of work;
(c) Can he indent material and distribute the same amongst the workmen;
(d) Even though he has no authority to grant leave does he have power to recommend leave;
(e) Are there persons working under him;
(f) Has he the power to supervise the work of men and not merely machines;
(g) Dos he mark the attendance of other employees;
(h) Does he write the confidential reports of his subordinates.
Learned Panel Counsel for workman has referred to judgment of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.
Maini vs. M/s. Carona Sahu Company, (1994) 3 SCC 510. Para 9, 10 & 11 of this judgment are being reproduced
as follows :-
7756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“9. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and
functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and
materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to
the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases. When an employee is
employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition of workman under Section 2(s), there is hardly any
difficulty in treating him as a workman under the appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or
commercial organisations quite a large number of employees are often required to do more than one kind of work.
In such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose
of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. In this connection, reference may
be made to the decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burmah
Shell Management Staff Assn. [(1970) 3 SCC 378 : (1971) 2 SCR 758 : (1970) 2 LLJ 590] In All India Reserve
Bank Employees' Assn. v. Reserve Bank of India [(1965) 2 LLJ 175 : AIR 1966 SC 305 : (1966) 1 SCR 25] it has
been held by this Court that the word „supervise‟ and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often
be construed in the light of context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as
manual work coupled with the power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. It has been
rightly contended by both the learned counsel that the designation of an employee is not of much importance and
what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main
duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the
work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is
mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work,
the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or
of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or
only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the
purview of „workman‟ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
10. In Mcleod and Co. v. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, W.B. [AIR 1958 Cal 273] P.B. Mukharji, J. of the Calcutta
High Court as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed that whether a person was a workman within the
definition of the Industrial Disputes Act would be the very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal.
The court further observed that in order to determine the categories of service indicated by the use of different
words like „supervisory‟, „managerial‟ and „administrative‟, it was not necessary to import the notions of one into
the interpretation of the other. The words such as „supervisory‟, „managerial‟ and „administrative‟ are advisedly
loose expressions with no rigid frontiers and too much subtlety should not be used in trying to precisely define
where supervision ends and management begins or administration starts. For that would be theoretical and not
practical. It has to be broadly interpreted from a common sense point of view where tests will be simple both in
theory and in their application. The learned Judge further observed that a supervisor need not be a manager or an
administrator and a supervisor can be a workman so long as he did not exceed the monetary limitation indicated in
the section and a supervisor irrespective of his salary is not a workman who has to discharge function mainly of
managerial nature by reasons of the duties attached to his office or of the powers vested in him. The aforesaid
decision of the Calcutta High Court was noted with approval by this Court in National Engineering Industries
Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageria [1988 Supp SCC 82 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 428 : AIR 1988 SC 329] .
11. It may be noted in this connection that in view of the amendment of Section 2(s) enlarging the ambit of the
classification of various types of workmen except managerial force, entire labour force has been included within
the definition of workman under Section 2(s) as has been indicated by this Court in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh
Chandra [(1983) 4 SCC 214 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 510 : (1983) 3 SCR 799] . But if the principal function is of
supervisory nature, the employee concerned will not be workman only if he draws a particular quantum of salary
at the relevant time as indicated in Section 2(s). In the instant case, it, however, appears to us that Shri Maini as
Manager/In-charge of the shop was made responsible and liable to make good such amount of credit whether such
sale on credit had been made by him or by any other member of the staff in employment under him with or without
his knowledge. Under the terms and conditions of service, he was asked to take charge of the shop to which his
service was transferred. Mr Maini, under the terms and conditions of service, was required to be held responsible
and liable for any loss suffered by the Company due to deterioration of the quality of the stock or any part thereof
and loss of any of the other articles lying in the shop caused by reason of any act of negligence and/or omission to
take any precaution by the employees. Mr Maini was also required to notify the Company by trunk call and/or
telegram not later than three hours after the discovery in the said shop of any fire, theft, burglary, loot or arson.
He was required to investigate into the matter immediately and get the cause and amount of loss established by
local authorities. Mr Maini as in-charge of the shop was required to keep and maintain proper accounts as
approved by the Company indicating the exact amount to be paid from the receipts from the respective staff. Under
Clause XIII of the terms and conditions of the service, Mr Maini would remain fully responsible to the Company
for damages or loss caused by acts or commission of the loss of the employees of the shop. Under Clause XV of the
terms and conditions of service, the shop in-charge was required to keep himself fully conversant with all the
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7757
regulations in force which may come into force from time to time with regard to Octroi, Sales Tax and Shops and
Commercial Establishments Act and/or any other local regulation applicable to the shop. Clause XXI indicates
that non-compliance with any of the local or State Acts or Central Acts would be viewed seriously and Manager
would be held responsible for any fine/penalty imposed and/or prosecution launched against the Company. It also
appears that in the event of a salesman being absent, the shop in-charge is empowered to appoint temporary helper
for the said period to work as acting salesman. Similarly, in the event of helper being absent, the shop manager is
also empowered to appoint part-time sweeper and to entrust the work of a helper to a sweeper. Such functions, in
our view, appear to be administrative and managerial. By virtue of his being in-charge of the shop, he was the
principal officer-in-charge of the management of the shop. We therefore find justification in the finding of the
High Court that the principal function of the appellant was of administrative and managerial nature. It is true that
he himself was also required to do some works of clerical nature but it appears to us that by and large Shri Maini
being in-charge of the management of the shop had been principally discharging the administrative and
managerial work. A manager or an administrative officer is generally invested with the power of supervision in
contradistinction to the stereotype work of a clerk. This Court in Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Panna Lal Gupta [(1961) 1
LLJ 18 : AIR 1967 SC 428] has indicated that a manager or administrator generally occupies a position of
command or decision and is authorised to act in certain matters within the limits of his authority without the
sanction of his superior. In the instant case within the authority indicated in the terms and conditions of his
service, Shri Maini was authorised to take decisions in the matter of temporary appointments and in taking all
reasonable steps incidental to the proper running of the shop. Precisely for the said reason, Shri Maini had signed
the statutory forms as an employer. It should be borne in mind that an employee discharging managerial duties
and functions may not, as a matter of course, be invested with the power of appointment and discharge of other
employees. It is not unlikely that in a big set-up such power is not invested to a local manager but such power is
given to some superior officers also in the management cadre at divisional or regional level. The unit in a local
shop may not be large but management of such small unit may fulfil the requirements and incidences of
managerial functions. On a close scrutiny of the nature of duties and functions of the Shop Manager with
reference to the admitted terms and conditions of service of Shri Maini, it appears to us that the High Court was
justified in holding that the appellant was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the
aforesaid facts, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether or not domestic enquiry had been properly
conducted or the Enquiring Officer had acted with bias. It is also not necessary to decide for the purpose of the
disposal of the appeal as to whether or not the Company was entitled to lead fresh evidence in support of the
domestic enquiry before the Labour Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without, however, any order as to
cost.”
In another case of Vandana Joshi vs. Standard Charter Bank MANU/MH/1391/2010, decided by Hon‘ble
High Court of Bombay it has been laid down that the question as to whether the employee is a applicant or not must
be decided with reference to the dominant nature of the duties and responsibilities performed by employee.
In the case of Arkal Govind Rao vs. Ciba Geigy of India, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 371, it was held that the
person concerned would not cease to be a applicant if he performs some supervisory duty but he must be a person
engaged in supervisory duty and the test to be employed is what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of
duties for which the person whose status is under inquiry was employed.
Now analyzing the evidence in the case in hand on the basis of tests laid down in the aforesaid Judgments,
it comes out that the role and duties of the Applicant/Petitioner have been defined in his letter of Appointment and
have been mentioned above. There is no circular or standing order or settlement filed by Management describing the
duties and liabilities of the applicant.
In his uncross-examined affidavit, the Workman has stated that his job was mainly Clerical, he did not have
authority to appoint anybody or to punish anybody. He did not have any right to supervise anyone.
Pleadings of Management is that, there is no evidence from the Management in rebuttal to the aforesaid
evidences of the workman.
Furthermore, the duties and liabilities of the workman which are mentioned in his contract of appointment in
Clause 2 are that, his work in the organization shall will be subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Company as
laid down in relation to the conduct, discipline and other matters and also that, he shall always be liable to the
responsibility and duties attached to his position and conduct himself accordingly.
Hence, in the light of these aforesaid findings, the Applicant is held to be a workman under Section 2(s)
of the Act.
As regards to the Second point, case of Management is that, the Workman unauthorizedly absented himself
from work and he was terminated under Clause 12 of Contract of Appointment which states that in event of his
unauthorized absence from duty for continuous period of Seven days, he shall be deemed to have relinquish the
employment on his own and will have no right to resumed. The Company shall be fully empowered to terminate his
employment. This Clause provides a prior notice of 90 days by either sides when either side want to quit the job or
7758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
discharge the workman. The termination mail dated 11.10.2022 states that the workman did not attend office from
01.08.2022 till date i.e. 11.10.2022, it also mentions two communication dated 19.09.2022 and 29.09.2022 in which
the workman was asked to explain the reason for his absence and report to office within 48 hours, failing which the
Management will be constraint to invoke the relevant clause as per terms of appointment to terminate his services. It
also mentions that, the workman never recruited on work nor did he sent a reply explaining his absence. Hence, the
Management invoked the said clause and terminated his services.
The burden to proof this fact is on Management. Case of the Workman is that, mails were sent to him on his
personal mail Id [email protected], not on the Official Mail Id of the workman. It does not make any
difference whether the Mails were sent by the Management on the personal mail Id or official Mail Id of the
Workman. The only important point is that, the mails were sent and served on the Workman. The fact still remains
that, he neither reported at his workplace with response to the Mails nor did he submitted any explanation for his
absence. His case is that he was threatened by some Officers of Management who had asked him to pay illegal money
is a separate matter and is not appearing on his case.
Hence, from the admission of the workman himself, his absence without any reason for seven days and
more from workplace is established.
In the light of the terms and conditions of the appointment letter as mentioned above, the Management is
held to be fully within its rights to terminate Workman services without any notice as terms and conditions of the
appointment letter.
On the basis of above discussion and findings the reference stands answered against the Workman. He is
held entitled to no relief.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 17/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2273.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
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;
II
ds iapkV (257/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-आईआर(बी-I)-150]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 257/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public
Work Department and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR(B-I)-150]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
I.D. NO. 257/2022
Sh. Inder Kumar & 11 Ors.
Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,
CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,
Shop No.-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7759
VERSUS
1.
The Director General,
Central Public Work Department,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2.
The Director of Personal, P.W.D.,
11th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D. H.Q.)
I.T.O, New Delhi-110002.
3.
Work Cum T.L.Q. (A),
Special Director of General, Project & Chandigarh,
CPWD kendriya Sadan Chandigarh-160009.
4.
PWD Secretary,
11th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D.H.Q.),
I.T.O, New Delhi-110002.
AWARD
24.11.2025
1.
This is an application U/s 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (here in after is referred as an Act) filed
by the claimants. Their names and particulars are given below-
Name
Date of Joining
Joining Division office
Present Division
Office
Sub Division
Office
1
Jitender
02.02.2002
P.W.D Circle no. II
M-113 S.W.R.I
C.E.M.Z-IS
2
Sushil Kumar
17.03.1995
School Building Project
Mandel
M-214(P.W.D.)
M-214
3
Sanjeev Sharma
12.06.1995
S.R.D
M-21
4
Rajesh Sharma
01.12.1999
Delhi College
5
Jai Prakash Dubey
31.07.2003
S.R.D.(E)
P.W.D office
6
Anil Kumar
31.12.2008
E.IN.C
M313-3 (PWD)
E.I.M.C.
7
Shammi Ram
16.06.2007
D.C. College Project
M-333
C.F.M.A
(III)(N)
8
Chhote Lal
13.07.1992
ED-II P.W.D
Shiksha Mandel-II
Shiksha
Mandel-II,
Dwarka
9
Rajesh Kumar
01.12.1911
Delhi College
10
Prabhu
01.11.2012
P.W.D. M-14
E.D. (P.W.D.)
E.D.U. (M)
P.W.D
11
Hasan
31.01.2008
M-25
S.R.D. (E)
E.IN.C
P.W.D
All the workmen had joined into the employer of the management from their respective date of appointed as
mentioned in the table herein above. Their dispute regarding regularization of their services is pending. After
receiving the notice from the Conciliation, management started misbehaving with the workmen and threatening them
to terminate from their services which is an illegal act of retaliation and shows that managements are annoyed due to
pending dispute. Hence, they filed the application under section 33-A of the Act with the prayed that management be
directed not to terminate the services of the workmen during the pendency of the subject dispute.
2.
All the Managements have already been proceeded ex-parte on 10.04.2023.
7760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Now, the matter is listed for ex-parte workman evidence. On 23.01.2025, claimants were directed to furnish
the details of the main dispute of the present application, as nothing in this regard was mentioned in the claim
statement. However, neither claimants nor AR have been appearing for a long time.
5.
In these circumstances, when claimants are not interested in perusing their case, this tribunal has no option
but to dismiss their application. Hence, application under section 33-A of the Act stands dismissed. Award is
passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the
I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2274.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मैंगनीज ओर इंजडया जलजमटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्रम िजक्त मजदूर संघ के बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 22/2014-15) को जजसा
दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त
हुआ था l
[सं. एल-27011/01/2014-आईआर(एम)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2014-15) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
relation to Manganese Ore India Ltd. and Shram Shakti Mazdoor Sangh which was received along with soft copy
of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. L-27011/01/2014-IR(M)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/22/2014-15
Date: 11.11.2025.
Party No.1:
The Executive Director (Tech)
Manganese Ore (I) Ltd.,
MOIL Bhawan, 1-A, Katol Road,
Nagpur - 440013.
V/s.
Party No.2:
The General Secretary,
Shram Shakti Mazdoor Sangh,
R/o Maa Durga Bhawan, Sai Colony, Jagnare Nagar,
Tumsar, PO/Tq. Tumsar Distt, Bhandara (MS)
Bhandara.
AWARD
(Dated: 11th November, 2025)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Claus (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the applicant filed an industrial dispute between the employers, in relation
to the management of Manganese Ore (I) Ltd. and the applicant Rajkumar Choudhary for adjudication vide
No. L-27011/1/2014 (IR(M)) dt. 01.09.2014 with the following issues framed: -
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7761
―Whether the demand of Shram Shakti Mazdoor Sangh for enhancement of pay scale of the workman
employed in chemical department having qualification of B.Sc. should be given pay scale from NE 7 to
NE 9 and Sh. Rajkumar Choudhary Sr. Charge Hand (Process) who was authorized for supervisory
work for the period from 2008 to 06.04.2013 is entitled for officiating allowance, is legal, just and
proper? If so, what relief to the workman concerned are entitled to?‖
2.
Case is called out. Learned counsel for the respondent Shri. Harshal Ghumd 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 20.12.2023, although Statement of Claim and Written Statement have been filed by the
parties respectively, petitioner has also filed his affidavit as an evidence. But the petitioner has not come to the court
to prove the contents of the affidavit as well as the contents of the Statement of Claim. No other evidence has been
filed by the petitioner to prove his claim. Petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that he is not
interested to contest the case furthermore. Claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, it is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
―The demand of Shram Shakti Mazdoor Sangh for enhancement of pay scale of the workman
employed in chemical department having qualification of B.Sc. should be given pay scale from NE 7 to NE 9
and Sh. Rajkumar Choudhary Sr. Charge Hand (Process) who was authorized for supervisory work for the
period from 2008 to 06.04.2013 is entitled for officiating allowance is illegal, unjustified & improper. The
concerned workman is not entitled to any relief‖.
Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2275.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार ईएसआईसी हॉजस्ट्पटल; एवरेस्ट्ट ह्यूमन ररसोसड कंसल्टेंट; ग्रीन हाउसकीसपग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
श्री सुनील कुमार, श्री िुभम, श्री अजखलेि कुमार राम द्वारा इंजडयन नेिनल माइग्रेंट वकडसड यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, नई ददल्ली, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 90/2022,
91/2022, 92/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी
के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-172]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 90/2022, 91/2022, 92/2022) of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between
the employers in relation to ESIC Hospital; Everest Human Resource Consultant; Green Housekeeping and Shri
Sunil Kumar, Shri Subham, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Ram through Indian National Migrant Worker‘s Union
which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-172]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II,
NEW DELHI
I.D. NO. 90/2022
Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Charan Singh,
R/o- House No. A-1/91, Street No. 01,
East Gokulpur, Delhi-110094.
7762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D. NO. 91/2022
Sh. Subham, S/o Sh. Chetan,
R/o- A-224, MB Road Lal Kuan,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.
I.D. NO. 92/2022
Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Ram, S/o Sh. Shivnath Ram,
R/o- Sham Pur, Saran, Bihar-841411.
Through- Indian National Migrant Worker‘s Union,
1770/8, 3rd Floor, Govind Puri Extn. Main Road, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019.
VERSUS
1.
The Director, ESIC Hospital, Okhla,
Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi-110020.
2.
The Director, Everrest Human Resource Consultant,
02, RZF-01/382, Mahavir Enclave, Part-01,
Behind Bhagat Chandra Hospital, Palam Dabri Road,
New Delhi-110045.
3.
Green Housekeeping,
Through- Mitlesh Kumar, D-01/102, Street No. 03,
Ashok Nagar, Near MIG Flat, New Delhi-110093.
AWARD
09.12.2025
1.
By this composite order, I shall dispose of these three applications of U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act
(herein after referred to as ―the Act‖) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents, because of
having the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for their illegal termination.
Claims of the workmen are that they have been serving the management-1 through management-2 & 3. Name and
particular of their employment are given below-
Sr.
no
Name
Post
Dates of
Joining
Dates of
Termination
Last drawn
Salary
1
Sunil Kumar
Dresser
24.10.2018
28.02.2021
12,000/-
2
Subham
Ward Boy
03.11.2017
28.02.2021
11,000/-
3
Akhilesh Kumar Ram
Ward Boy
30.10.2018
28.02.2021
11,000/-
2.
They had been doing their work with diligently and honestly. Their service records are clean and they have
not given any complaint so far. The employers had made the claimants‘ signs on many blank papers, blank vouchers,
blank agreement letters and blank appointment letters at the time of appointment during the service but did not give a
copy of the same to the claimants. During the services, management never provided legal facilities like Appointment
letter, wages slip, leave book, attendance card, annual and festival holidays, ESI & PF etc. When the claimants
demanded all the above mentioned legal benefits, the employer immediately became angry and in a spirit of revenge,
without paying the earned salary to the workmen from 01.02.2021 to 27.02.2021 respectively, without prior notice,
without any notice charge sheet, without any rhyme and reason, claimants were illegally terminated by the
management on 28.02.2021. They had gone to the conciliation officer, but, no results were yielded. Hence, they have
filed the present claims.
3.
Management no. 1 and Management no. 3 have filed their respective W.S, denying the averments made in
their claim statements. They have submitted that claims are liable to be dismissed.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7763
4.
Management no. 2 has already been proceeded ex-parted vide order dated 11.10.2022.
5.
After completion of the pleadings, following identical issues in all cases have been framed vide order dated
05.10.2023 i.e.-
1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2. Whether their exist employer and employee relationship between the management and the claimant.
3. Whether service of the claimant was illegally terminated and if so, by whom.
4. To what relief, the claimant is entitled to.
6.
Now, these matters are listed for workman evidence. AR of the claimants Sh. Vishwambar Nayak had
submitted that he is not able to contact the claimants, and has requested to dismiss these cases.
7.
In view of the above submission, these matters stand dismissed for want of prosecution. Awards are passed
accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17
of the I.D Act, 1947. Records of these files are consigned to record room. A copy of this award is placed in each of
the file.
Date: 09.12.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 30 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2276.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार ईएसआईसी जडस्ट्पेंसरी; आर.के.एस. जसक्योररटी एजेंसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री लाल ससह द्वारा
ऑल इंजडया जनरल मजदूर रेड यूजनयन के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम
न्यायालय-2, नई ददल्ली, पंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 225/2019) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज
जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 30.12.2025 को प्राप्त हुआ था l
[सं. जेड-16025/04/2025-आईआर(एम)-173]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 30th December, 2025
S.O. 2276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 225/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the
employers in relation to ESIC Dispensary; R.K.S. Security Agnecy and Shri Lal Singh through All India General
Mazdoor Trade Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government
on 30.12.2025.
[No. Z-16025/04/2025-IR(M)-173]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
I.D. No. 225/2019
Sh. Lal Singh, S/o Late Sh. Mangla Ram,
Through- All India General Mazdoor Trade Union.
Office- 170, Bal Mukund-Khand Giri Nagar, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019.
...Claimant/Workman
7764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
VERSUS
1.
ESIC Dispensary,
G-Block, Opp. CGHS Dispensary, Kalkaji,
New Delhi-110019.
2.
R.K. S. Security Agency,
Office-D-3, New Ashok Nagar,
New Delhi-110066.
…Managements/Respondents
AWARD
26.05.2025
This is an application under section 2A of the I.D Act (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act‖) filed by the
claimant against his illegal termination. Claimant case is that he had been working with the management-1 through
contractor i.e. management-2 at the post of Security Guard since October, 2017 at the last drawn salary of Rs.
23,181/-. He has been doing his duty with diligently and honestly and did not give any chance to the management for
making any complaint. Management had deprived him of various legal facilities i.e. leave book, Attendance card,
Bonus etc. When he demanded verbally for the above said facility, management became angry and in a spirit of
revenge had terminated his services on 21.10.2018. He has gone to the conciliation officer, but no result was yielded.
Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated in services with full back wages.
Management-1 has filed its written statement, stating that claimant was engaged by the Independent
contractor i.e. management-2, therefore, no employer employee relationship exists between the claimant and the
management. He submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.
Management-2 has already been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2022.
Claimant is required to file the rejoinder. However, despite being granted several opportunities, he has failed
to appear.
In these circumstances, when the workman is not interested in pursuing his claim, this tribunal has no option
except to pass the no disputant award. Award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of
this award is hereby sent to the appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D Act 1947.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2277.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a11/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2025-आईआर(बी-II)-46]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2025- IR(B-II)-46]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7765
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/11/ 2017
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Jitendra Imne
S/o Shri G.L. Imne,
R/o – Gwaltoli,
Khajanpur, Hoshangabad (M.P.)
Workman
Vs.
Branch Manager,
Branch-Hoshangabad,
Punjab National Bank,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 07th day of November - 2025)
The applicant workman has filed this petition under Section 2(A) (2&3) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947
as amended by Amendment Act of 2010 with the case that, he was appointed as a daily rated employee in the Bank in
the Hoshangababd Branch, Bhopal and worked from 17.09.2012 to 25.08.2016. His services were illegally
terminated. He had worked for more than 240 days in every year, he was not issued any notice nor was he was paid
any compensation; hence termination of his services is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. He raised a
dispute before the regional Labour Commissioner Bhopal by way of filing an application on 15.05.2017 which could
not be conciliated within 45 days; hence he obtained a certificate in this respect and filed the petition directly.
According to the petitioner, the action of Management in terminating his services is unjust, illegal and arbitrary,
hence, required to be set-aside. He prayed that setting-aside his termination, he be reinstated with back wages and
benefits.
Case of the Management Bank is mainly that, the petitioner was engaged on leave gap arrangement for
casual work when regular sub staff proceeded on leave or remain absent from duty. He used to do the work of
cleaning on intermittent basis for 1 or 2 hours in a day, for which he was paid by way of cash vouchers. He was not
engaged in regular post following recruitment procedure. His representation which he filed under the order of Hon‘ble
High Court of M.P. in W.P. No. 14556/2016 was disposed by Bank in the light of its order dated 23.02.2017. This is
also the case of Management that, there was no employee and employer relation between parties; hence there is no
question of termination of services of the petitioner by the Bank. Management Bank has prayed that the petition be
dismissed.
In evidence, the petitioner has filed photocopy order dated 20.12.2016 passed by Hon‘ble High Court of
M.P. in W.P. No. 14556/2016 order of the Management in W.P. No. 14556/2016 order of the Management Bank on
representation of the petitioner filed by him in compliance of the order of the Hon‘ble High Court, copy of the Labour
Commissioner certificate, photocopy of the Cash Book showing payments on different days marked as Exhibit W-1 to
W- 8. He has also filed his affidavit as examination-in-chief on which he has been cross-examined.
Management Bank has filed affidavit of its witness Yogesh Krishna Saxena as examination-in-chief. He has
been cross-examined by petitioner side.
The Workman side has had also filed an application dated 02.09.2024 seeking production of documents
which are payment vouchers and their entries which was allowed after hearing. The Management did not file these
documents, rather filed an affidavit that these documents are not available. Hence, the workman proved the cash book
entries and vouchers by way of secondary evidences.
7766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I have heard argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sign and Mr. Neeraj Kewat
Learned Counsel for the Management Bank. I have gone through the record as well.
Pleadings of the party have been detailed earlier. The case of the Workman is that he was engaged as a
daily wager in the Bank and worked continuously from 17.09.2012 to 25.08.2016. Management has taken a case that
he was engaged as leave gap arrangement when the regular sub-staff was on leave or absent. He never worked
continuously for 240 days in any year. The petitioner and Management witness both have corroborated their
respective pleadings as mentioned above in their affidavit filed as their examination-in-chief.
There is on record copy of order of the Management passed on 23.02.2017 by which the representation of the
Workman was decided in the light of the order of Hon‘ble High Court. It is also mentioning here that in the W.P. No.
14556/2016 Hon‘ble High Court had directed the Management Bank to decide the representation of the petitioner
workman by a reasoned order within 60 days of the representation. This order speaks that the Workman had not
performed duties of part-time sweeper or peon at any point of time; rather he had been carrying his business/ engaged
by Contractors as a Canteen Boy and used to supply tea/snacks to the staff members of the Branch during the relevant
period. This observation of the Bank is in contravention of their pleadings were they have stated that the petitioner
was engaged as a daily wager casual labour by Bank on as and when required basis for which he was paid. The
Management witness Yogesh Krishna Saxena also states against the fact in the said order and supports the pleadings
of the Bank that petitioner workman was engaged on leave gap arrangement for casual work on as and when required
basis for intermittent period for which he was paid.
In his cross-examination, the workman had admitted that he was not issued any appointment letter, thus at
least this fact that the Workman was engaged by the Management Bank as a daily wager is not disputed between the
parties. What is disputed is as to whether he worked continuously as a daily wager for at least 240 days or more in the
year claimed by petitioner workman or was engaged on intermittent basis as on and when required.
The payment vouchers are not complete. They were required to be filed by the Management which could not
be filed. They were not available with the Bank as stated by Bank in the affidavit of Workman. Hence, there is on
record a statements from the side of the parties. The workman has stated that he worked continuously for 240 days in
every year. There is no cross-examination done by Management on this point. On the other hand, Management
witness has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not working in the Branch when the Workman has said to
have been engaged or working at any point of time, so he does not have any personal knowledge about facts and
events. As admitted by the Bank, the payment vouchers with regards to the petitioner workman are not available with
them. Hence, in the light of these circumstances, the evidence of the Workman side appears more reliable and
accordingly, the case of the Workman that he worked as a daily wager causal labour engaged in the work of cleaning
of the Branch for 240 days or more in every year is held proved.
Since, it is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioner Workman before his disengagement nor
was he paid any compensation during his disengagement by Bank is held in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the
Act.
As regards to the relief in the light of the findings recorded above, there is substance in the argument from
the Learned Counsel for Bank that since workman was not appointed against regular vacancy following recruitment
process, hence his reinstatement will not be a justifiable relief.
In the light of tenure of engagement of the Workman and facts and circumstances mentioned above, a
lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one Lac) in lieu of all the claims of the Workman will meet the ends
of justice to which he is entitled to recover from Bank within 30 days from the date of publication of Award
failing which interest @6% from the date of Award till payment.
In the light of above discussion and findings the reference is answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 07/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2278.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a09/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2025-आईआर(बी-II)-47]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7767
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 09/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2025- IR(B-II)-47]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/RC/09/ 2017
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Arjun Singh Raghuwanshi
S/o Shri R.S. Raghuwanshi,
R/o – 119, Sai Ram Colony,
Semrakalan, Bhopal (M.P.)
Workman
Vs.
Branch Manager,
Branch-Shahpura,
Punjab National Bank,
Bhopal (M.P.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 07th day of November - 2025)
The applicant workman has filed this petition under Section 2(A) (2&3) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947
as amended by Amendment Act of 2010 with the case that, he was appointed as a daily rated employee in the Bank in
the Shahpura Branch, Bhopal and worked from 01.10.2013 to 25.08.2016. His services were illegally terminated. He
had worked for more than 240 days in every year, he was not issued any notice nor was he was paid any
compensation; hence termination of his services is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. He raised a dispute
before the regional Labour Commissioner Bhopal by way of filing an application on 15.05.2017 which could not be
conciliated within 45 days; hence he obtained a certificate in this respect and filed the petition directly. According to
the petitioner, the action of Management in terminating his services is unjust, illegal and arbitrary, hence, required to
be set-aside. He prayed that setting-aside his termination, he be reinstated with back wages and benefits.
Case of the Management Bank is mainly that, the petitioner was engaged on leave gap arrangement for
casual work when regular sub staff proceeded on leave or remain absent from duty. He used to do the work of
cleaning on intermittent basis for 1 or 2 hours in a day, for which he was paid by way of cash vouchers. He was not
engaged in regular post following recruitment procedure. His representation which he filed under the order of Hon‘ble
High Court of M.P. in W.P. No. 14556/2016 was disposed by Bank in the light of its order dated 23.02.2017. This is
also the case of Management that, there was no employee and employer relation between parties; hence there is no
question of termination of services of the petitioner by the Bank. Management Bank has prayed that the petition be
dismissed.
In evidence, the petitioner has filed photocopy order dated 20.12.2010 passed by Hon‘ble High Court of
M.P. in W.P. No. 14556/2016 order of the Management in W.P. No. 14556/2016 order of the Management Bank on
representation of the petitioner filed by him in compliance of the order of the Hon‘ble High Court, copy of the Labour
Commissioner certificate, photocopy of the Cash Book showing payments on different days marked as Exhibit W-1 to
W- 8. He has also filed his affidavit as examination-in-chief on which he has been cross-examined.
7768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management Bank has filed affidavit of its witness Yogesh Krishna Saxena as examination-in-chief. He has
been cross-examined by petitioner side.
The Workman side has had also filed an application dated 02.09.2024 seeking production of documents
which are payment vouchers and their entries which was allowed after hearing. The Management did not file these
documents, rather filed an affidavit that these documents are not available. Hence, the workman proved the cash book
entries and vouchers by way of secondary evidences.
I have heard argument of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Sign and Mr. Neeraj Kewat
Learned Counsel for the Management Bank. I have gone through the record as well.
Pleadings of the party have been detailed earlier. The case of the Workman is that he was engaged as a
daily wager in the Bank and worked continuously from 01.10.2013 to 25.08.2016. Management has taken a case that
he was engaged as leave gap arrangement when the regular sub-staff was on leave or absent. He never worked
continuously for 240 days in any year. The petitioner and Management witness both have corroborated their
respective pleadings as mentioned above in their affidavit filed as their examination-in-chief.
There is on record copy of order of the Management passed on 23.02.2017 by which the representation of the
Workman was decided in the light of the order of Hon‘ble High Court. It is also mentioning here that in the W.P. No.
14556/2016 Hon‘ble High Court had directed the Management Bank to decide the representation of the petitioner
workman by a reasoned order within 60 days of the representation. This order speaks that the Workman had not
performed duties of part-time sweeper or peon at any point of time; rather he had been carrying his business/ engaged
by Contractors as a Canteen Boy and used to supply tea/snacks to the staff members of the Branch during the relevant
period. This observation of the Bank is in contravention of their pleadings were they have stated that the petitioner
was engaged as a daily wager casual labour by Bank on as and when required basis for which he was paid. The
Management witness Yogesh Krishna Saxena also states against the fact in the said order and supports the pleadings
of the Bank that petitioner workman was engaged on leave gap arrangement for casual work on as and when required
basis for intermittent period for which he was paid.
In his cross-examination, the workman had admitted that he was not issued any appointment letter, thus at
least this fact that the Workman was engaged by the Management Bank as a daily wager is not disputed between the
parties. What is disputed is as to whether he worked continuously as a daily wager for at least 240 days or more in the
year claimed by petitioner workman or was engaged on intermittent basis as on and when required.
The payment vouchers are not complete. They were required to be filed by the Management which could not
be filed. They were not available with the Bank as stated by Bank in the affidavit of Workman. Hence, there is on
record a statements from the side of the parties. The workman has stated that he worked continuously for 240 days in
every year. There is no cross-examination done by Management on this point. On the other hand, Management
witness has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not working in the Branch when the Workman has said to
have been engaged or working at any point of time, so he does not have any personal knowledge about facts and
events. As admitted by the Bank, the payment vouchers with regards to the petitioner workman are not available with
them. Hence, in the light of these circumstances, the evidence of the Workman side appears more reliable and
accordingly, the case of the Workman that he worked as a daily wager causal labour engaged in the work of cleaning
of the Branch for 240 days or more in every year is held proved.
Since, it is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioner Workman before his disengagement nor
was he paid any compensation during his disengagement by Bank is held in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the
Act.
As regards to the relief in the light of the findings recorded above, there is substance in the argument from
the Learned Counsel for Bank that since workman was not appointed against regular vacancy following recruitment
process, hence his reinstatement will not be a justifiable relief.
In the light of tenure of engagement of the Workman and facts and circumstances mentioned above, a
lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(one Lac) in lieu of all the claims of the Workman will meet the ends
of justice to which he is entitled to recover from Bank within 30 days from the date of publication of Award
failing which interest @6% from the date of Award till payment.
In the light of above discussion and findings the reference is answered accordingly.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 07/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7769
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2279.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
cSad vkWQ egkjk"Vª 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 (a13/2014) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/96/2013-आईआर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2014) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra
and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/96/2013- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/13/2014
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Ashutosh Bramhadin Awasthi,
R/o 3-A, Ramanand Nagar, Lalghati,
BHOPAL (M.P.) – 462032
Workman
Vs
Zonal Manager,
Bank of Maharsthra, Zonal Office,
1/14, Admn. Zone, Arera Hills,
BHOPAL (M.P.))
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 13th day of October, 2025)
As per letter dated 07/02/2014 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‟) as per
Notification No.L-12012/96/2013 (IR(B-II)) dt. 07/02/2014. The dispute under reference relates to:-
“Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Bhopal in dismissing the services of
workman Shri Ashutosh Bramhadin Awasthi w.e.f. 29.11.2012 is justified? What relief the workman is
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 when he was posted as a Computer Operator ‗A‘ in Sehore Branch
of the Bank, he was issued a charge sheet. The charges against the workman were mainly that he made unauthorized
and fraudulent deposits by way of various instruments, in his Saving Bank account and thereafter, withdrew these
amounts fraudulently by way of various withdrawal slips/instruments details mentioned in the charge sheet, thus
committed misconduct under Clause-19.5(j) of The Bipartite Settlement. He was awarded the punishment of dismissal
7770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
from service after a departmental inquiry. He workman challenged the departmental enquiry and punishment on
various grounds which are namely that defense was denied proper opportunity to defend itself, principles of natural
justice were not followed, the Enquiry Officer was acting under the direction of the Disciplinary Authority and taking
decisions under the directions of the Disciplinary Authority, thus not acting independently and impartially, the prayer
of the workman with regard to change of the Enquiry Officer was not decided, the crucial documents were not
provided by the presenting Officer inspite of direction of the Enquiry Officer to supply them to the workman, a Police
case on the basis of a First Information Report filed by the Bank with respect to the same incident was pending before
Court and the Enquiry Officer did not wait the decision of the Court inspite of the fact that the charges and the
evidence were the same in the criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiry. Also that the charges were held
wrongly proved by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority as well appellate authority punishment is also
disproportionate to the charges.
Management has rebutted the allegations with case that the enquiry was conducted as per Rules and
Bipartite Settlement. Principles of natural justice were followed, workman was given full opportunity to defend itself.
Hence, there is not illegality regarding substance or procedure in conducting the enquiry. Also that the findings of the
enquiry officer and concurrence of Disciplinary Authority with respect to the proof of charges is correct on facts and
law and also that the punishment is not disproportionate to the misconduct proved.
Following preliminary issue was framed on the basis of pleadings-
Whether the departmental enquiry conducted against the workman is legal and proper?
This preliminary issue was decided after hearing vide order dated 29.04.2024. The enquiry was held
vitiated in law. Management was granted opportunity to prove the charges.
Thereafter, the management filed affidavit of its witness Mr. Kush Khare as his Examination-in-chief, he
was cross-examined by workman side. The management further proved documents Ex-M/9 and Ex-M/10, which are
certified statements of account of the workman, documents Ex-M/1 to Ex-M/9 are the documents related to charges,
enquiry and punishment order proved during the hearing of preliminary issue as mentioned above. The workman has
also filed his affidavit as his Examination-in-chief, he has been cross-examined by management. Documents Ex-W/1
to Ex-W/9 have been proved by the workman during hearing on preliminary issue, these are also the documents
related to charges, enquiry and punishment order as well statement of witnesses, Sukhlal and S.I. Vijay Singh
Rajpoot, recorded during the trial of criminal case relating to charges.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Praveen Yadav and Mr. Avinash Yadav for
management Bank. Parties have also filed the written arguments, which are part of record. I have gone through the
written arguments and record as well.
Following Issues arises on perusal of the record, in light of arguments:-
1)
Whether the charges against the workman are proved?
2)
Whether the punishment awarded is proportionate to the charges proved?
Issue No.1,
The charge against the workman was doing acts prejudicial to interest of the Bank or gross negligence
involving the Bank into serious loss, which is misconduct under Clause 19.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement. These charges
relate to three transactions, which are following in substance:-
i.
He unauthorisedly passed on benefits of huge amount to his own seven bank accounts by
crediting account, by way of entering fake bank numbers in the system and thus misappropriated
Bank funds.
ii.
He unauthorisedly passed on benefits of huge amount to his accounts and misutilization of Bank
funds for personal use.
iii.
He unauthorisedly passed on benefits of clearing amount to his own accounts without any
authority and jurisdiction and withdrew the same amount for personal use and thereafter,
managed to part way with the credits/debit voucher of the said transactions.
The settled proposition of law, with respect to proof of charges in a departmental proceeding, crystallized
through various pronouncements is that the charges in departmental proceedings are not required to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. As it is required in the criminal trial following judgments have been reproduced in this respect:-
Scope of disciplinary proceedings and scope of criminal proceedings are quite distinct, exclusive and
independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different. Ref. T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. vs.
K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7771
Standard of proof in a departmental enquiry which is quasicriminal/quasi-judicial in nature: Disciplinary
proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although
the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function, who
upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to
prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any
irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject
the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Ref: (i) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs.
State of Gujarat & Another, AIR 2013 SC 1513 (paras 10, 11, 12 & 13). (ii) M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India,
(2006) 5 SCC 88 (Para 25)
In the cases of (i) NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association Vs NOIDA & others, AIR 2007 SC 1161 (i4i) State
Bank of India Vs. R.B. Sharma, (2004) 7 SCC 27 (iii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. T. Srinivas, (2004) 7
SCC 442 (iv) Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, (1997) 2 SCC 699 (v) Captain M. Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (vi) State of Rajasthan Vs. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417
(vi) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 (vii) Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Baij Nath, AIR 1969 SC 30,
it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are
two different and distinct aspects. Departmental Enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of
public service. Crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The enquiry in a
departmental proceeding relates to the conduct or breach of duty by the delinquent officer to punish him for his
misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. It is the settled legal position that the strict standard of
proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded in a departmental proceeding. Criminal Proceedings and
the departmental proceeding under enquiry can go on simultaneously."
In the case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. Vs. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255, it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scopes of the disciplinary proceedings and of criminal proceedings are quite distinct,
exclusive and independent of each other. Standards of proof in the two proceedings are also different.
In the cases of Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui Vs. State of UP & others, (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1575 (Allahabad High
Court) and Ajeet Kumar Naag Vs. General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Haldia, JT 2005 (8) SC 425, the
distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn as under: "The two proceedings
i.e. criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The
object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender and the purpose of enquiry
proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules the rule
relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law burden of proof is on
the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot
be convicted by a court of law. In departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent
officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Procedure with respect to standard of proof
in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry the technical rules of
evidence have no application and the doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has also no application in the departmental
enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for
breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of
commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the
service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry
and trial of criminal case. "
Now testing the evidence of the aforesaid three management witnesses on the aforesaid settled principles
with respect to prove of charge, it comes out that there is sufficient evidence to involve and infer that the workman
was a party to the unauthorized transactions and was a beneficiary also because some of the amounts were credited in
the account of her husband, hence, charges as levelled in the charge sheet are held proved against the workman.
The management witness Mr. Kush Khare, who has been the Branch Manager of the Branch, where the
incident occurred, has stated in his affidavit that he had been posted in the said Branch as Branch Manager and is
conversant with the records. He further stated that Various Branches in District Sehore did not have facility of cheque
clearance. Therefore, the cheques presented at those Branches used to be sent to Sehore Branch of the Bank where
Shri Awasthy was posted as Computer Operator "A". From Sehore Branch, the cheques were required to be sent to
Clearing House at State Bank of India, Sehore. After clearance of the cheques, the amount was to be credited to CHP
Account (Clearing House Payable account) at Sehore Branch. Thereafter, the concerned Clerk (in this case Shri
Awasthy) was required to prepare batches of cheques which was to be authorized by the officer of the Branch.
Thereafter, the batch was again sent back to concerned clerk who was required to remit the amount to the concerned
Branch. However, after having received the batch of cheques after authorization from officer, Shri Awasthy, instead
of remitting the amount to the concerned Branch, defalcicated the amount by crediting the same in his own Saving
Bank Account and Employees' Cash Credit Account, by entering false cheque numbers. In order to hide his act, after
some time he used to remit the amount to concerned Branch by adjusting the same with some other entry.
7772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
He further stated that while posted at Sehore Branch, Shri Awasthy lodged cheque no.008832 for
Rs.1,16,795/- drawn on Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. Sehore and another cheque no.99863 of Rs. 1457/ drawn on
Union Bank of India, totaling Rs.1,18,252/- received from Dewadia Branch in clearing for collection. But after
realization, the amount of Rs.38,252/- was credited in his own Saving Bank Account No. 20120161235 by entering
false cheque no.465218 in the system and Rs.80,000/- in his Employees' Cash Credit Account No.20120104833 by
entering false cheque no.12345 in the system/modifying in the CBS System.
Also, this witness stated that Shri Awasthy later on withdrew Rs.80,000/-from his above Employees Cash
Credit Account on 09.01.2010 and Rs.15,000/- on 23.01.2010 from his aforesaid Saving Bank account. Later, he
managed to part away with the credit/debit vouchers of the transactions. He remitted the funds of Rs. 1,18,252/- to
Dewadia Branch vide MT No. 705252 on 17.02.2010 and intentionally did not remit the funds immediately so as to
enable him to use the same for his personal benefit.
Additionally, that on 12.01.2010, he lodged cheque no.130802 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of
India in clearing for collection. But after realization the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-credited his Employees' Cash
No.20120104833 by false cheque No.012356 by modifying in the CBS system.
He further states that later on he withdrew Rs. 1,20,000/- from his above Employees Cash Credit Account on
21.01.2010. Rs. 10,000/- on 30.01.2010. He managed to part away with the credit/debit vouchers of the transactions.
Instead of remitting realized funds to the branch immediately he has utilized the Bank's fund for his personal use for
considerable period. He remitted the funds to respective branch on 21.01.2010 and intentionally did not remit the
funds immediately so as to enable him to use the same for his personal benefit.
Furthermore, Shri Awasthy lodged 5 cheques bearing no.6280 for Rs.10,000/-, Cheque No.30148 for Rs.
10,000/-, Cheque No.5570 for Rs.5000/-, cheque no.5571 for Rs.5,000/- and cheque no.1497616 for Rs.22,000/-
totally for Rs.52,000/- received from Khachrod Branch, in clearing for collection. But after realization the amount of
Rs.11,085/- credited in his Saving Bank Account No.20120161235 by false cheque no.01222 by modifying in the
CBS system and remaining amount of Rs.20,915/- was credited in G/L CHP account by false cheque no.14566 and
Rs.20,000/- by false cheque no.514288 in G/L CHP account.
Moreover, later on Shri Awasthy withdrew Rs. 1,20,000/- from his employees Cash Credit Account on
21.01.2010. He managed to part away with the credit/debit vouchers of the transactions. Instead of remitting the
realized funds to the Branch immediately, he utilized the Bank's fund for his personal use for considerable period. He
remitted the funds to Khachrod Branch on 17.02.2010 and intentionally did not remit the funds immediately so as to
enable him to use the same for his personal benefit.
It has been stated by him that again on 09.02.2010, he lodged another cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- received from
Pandhana Branch in clearing for collection. But after realization, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credit by him in his
Saving Bank account No.2012061235 by false cheque no. 15964 by modifying in the CBS system. On same date, he
withdrew Rs.1,00,000/- from his above Saving Bank Account. Later he managed to part away with the credit/debit
vouchers of the transactions. Instead, of remitting the realized funds to the branch immediately, he has utilized the
Bank's fund for his personal use for considerable period. He has remitted the funds to Pandhana Branch on
18.02.2010 by MT No.705257 and intentionally did not remit the funds immediately so as to enable him to use the
same for his personal benefit.
Also, that again on 17.02.2010, he lodged a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- received from Dewadia Branch in
clearing for collection. But after realization, the amount of Rs.29,748/-account was credited by him in his Saving
Bank No.2012061235 by false cheque no.12345, Rs.52,000/- in G/L/ CHP account and remaining Rs.1,18,252/- in
G/L CHP account by false cheque, by modifying in the CBS system. He withdrew Rs.1,20,000/- from his above
Saving Bank Account on 20.02.2010. Later he managed to part away with the credit/debit vouchers of the
transactions. Instead of remitting the realized funds to the branch immediately, he has utilized the Bank's fund for his
personal use for considerable period. He intentionally did not remit the funds immediately so as to enable him to use
the same for his personal benefit.
Also, again on 18.02.2010, he lodged a cheque of Rs.4,92,022/- received from Dewadia Branch in clearing
for collection. But after realization, the amount of Rs.87,022/-was credited by him in his Saving Bank account
No.2012061235 and remaining Rs.4,05,000/- in G/L CHP account by false cheque by modifying in the CBS system.
He withdrew Rs.1,20,000/- from his above Saving Bank Account on 20.02.2010. Later, he managed to part away with
the credit/debit vouchers of the transactions. Instead of remitting the realized funds to the branch immediately, he has
utilized the Bank's fund for his personal use for considerable period. He intentionally did not remit the funds
immediately so as to enable him to use the same for his personal benefit.
Further it has been stated that again on 23.02.2010, he lodged a cheque of Rs.5,21,980/- in clearing for
collection. But after realization, the amount of Rs.29,958/ was credited by him in his Saving Bank Account
No.2012061235 and remaining Rs.4,92,022/- in G/L CHP account by false cheque by modifying in the CBS system.
He withdrew Rs.20,000/- & Rs.20,000/- from his above Saving Bank Account on 26.02.2010 and Rs. 10,000/- from
his Employees' Cash Credit account on 23.02.2010.. Later he managed to part away with the credit/debit vouchers of
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7773
the transactions. Instead of remitting the realized funds to the branch immediately, he has utilized the Bank's fund for
his personal use for considerable period. He intentionally did not remit the funds immediately so as to enable him to
use the same for his personal benefit.
This witness has also stated that all the aforesaid cheques were deposited by Shri Awasthy with his
signatures. Shri Awasthy used to cover up the fraudulent entry with some other entry and used to remit the long
pending amount so that his misdeed is not noticed by anybody. Shri Awasthy, by misusing his position in the Bank
committed following serious misconduct:
i. He un-authorizedly credited the amount to his Saving Bank account without any authority and
justification and thereafter withdrew the amount from his account and utilized the same.
ii. He destroyed the Bank's property in the form of credit/debit vouchers in respect of aforesaid
transaction by removing the same from Bank's record. This was done by him in order to hide his
aforesaid misconduct.
iii. By his aforesaid acts, he acted prejudicial to the Bank's interest because of which the order of
punishment passed against him is perfectly justified.
This witness has filed and proved the certified copy of the statements of seven Bank accounts and Cash
Credit (C.C.) accounts of the workman as Ex-M/9 and Ex-M/10.
In his cross-examination, this witness was shown a document which is photocopy of statement of account to
which he stated that he is not sure about the signature of Mr. P.P. Joshi, the then Branch Manager on this document.
He admitted that Mr. P.P. Joshi was posted in the branch as Officer. The workman was assigned with the job of data
entry, amount transactions, preparation of vouchers for cheque clearing, he did not have passed the power at that time.
Any amount to be credited or debited from any account is only after clearance by the Officer Mr. P.P. Joshi.
He further stated that every officer and employee of the Bank including the workman was allotted separate
user IDs. At that time there was no biometric authentication in Login and that one can Login using user ID of other
employee also that, every employee was allotted pass-code but employees did use their pass-codes in good faith.
Further, this witness has stated that the officer used to pass/approve transactions in good faith without verifying at that
time due to shortage of staff and ex-worker and also that stitching and typing of vouchers was the job of Daftari, it
was the responsibility of the officers to compare vouchers with the scrolls.
The documents Ex-M/9 and Ex-M/10 shows that certain amounts as mentioned in these documents were
transferred from different accounts to the account of the applicant workman.
The case of the applicant workman he has stated in his evidence is that all these transactions have been done
through the ID of Mr. P.P. Joshi and he is not concerned with the transactions. He also states that he himself come to
know about the unauthorized transaction and deposit in his accounts when the charge sheet was issued to him.
Striking feature of this case is that undisputedly, unauthorized transactions were done and amounts were
deposited in the accounts of the workman. Even if, it is taken that these transactions were not done through the ID and
Password of the workman, and were done through the ID of Officer Mr. P.P. Joshi, point further arise is that if these
deposits have been done by Mr. P.P. Joshi himself, he could have transferred the amounts in his own account or in
accounts of someone other who would withdraw these amounts and pay to Mr. P.P. Joshi. This is also improbable that
the workman, who himself is a banker, posted in the same branch in which he holds these accounts, did not come to
know at any point of time about the unauthorized huge deposits all on different dates as mentioned on the statements
of account. This is also a bit improbable that the workman came to know about these deposits only when the charge
sheet was issued to him.
Hence, in light of above discussion, the facts and circumstances in case in hand, probabalise all these
unauthorized deposits done by the workman himself, using the user IDs of others by deceit or by misguiding them.
Thus, in light of the settled proposition of law as mentioned above, the workman cannot come out clean with
the charges, undoubtedly, he is somewhere involved in the transactions and deposits. Hence, the charges against the
workman are held proved.
Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2,
The charges proved are more than one transaction. They are acts of moral turpitude. There is provision for
punishment of dismissal from service for these charges.
The settled proposition of law, in this respect is that until and unless, the punishment shocks the conscious of
the Tribunal, it need not to be interfered with, following judgments have been referred to in this respect:-
7774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Hon‘ble Apex Court in B.C. Chayurvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 while discussing
about the scope of judicial review, in disciplinary matters, has observed as under:
“The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its
own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it
would appropriately mold the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, imposed
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.”
In DG, RPF vs. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331, Hon‘ble Apex Court has observed that:
“6…………. Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by
the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that
the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant
factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the
nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of an discipline
required to be maintained, and the department/establishment which the delinquent person concerned
works.”
In United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar (2003) 4 SCC 364 Hon‘ble Apex Court on review of a
long line of cases and the principles of judicial review of administrative action under English law
summarized the legal position in the following words:
“11.
The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere
with the administrators‟ decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was
shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.
In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the
choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the
administrator. The scope of judicial review is judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-
making process and not the decision.
12.
To put it differently, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further, to
shorten litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording
cogent reasons in support thereof.‖
In Union of India vs. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal
position as follows:
“8.
……… The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of
disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds
the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved.”
In State of Meghalaya v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (2008) 7 SCC 580 Hon‘ble Supreme Court stated
that:
“The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the
conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
15.
Hon‘ble Apex Court in Administrator, UnionTerritory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulbhia
M. Lad (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101 has observed that
“The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the
High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary
authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment
unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would
shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of
punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors
such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent,
responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline
required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or
the tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
Needless to point out that the act of fraud speaks ill of the honesty and integrity of the workman concerned.
This is definitely an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, which leads to loss of faith in the workman. In Air
India Corporation Bombay vs. V.A. Ravellow 1972 (25) FLR 319 (SC) it has been observed that:
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7775
“Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence
is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the
reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a
case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.‖
In Knhaiyalal Agarwal and others vs. Factory Manager, Gwaliar Sugar Co. Ltd. AIR 2001
SC 3645 Hon‘ble Apex court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there
was bona fide loss of confidence in the employee, observing that:
“(i)
the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing such
position, be commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in
service/establishment would be embarrassing the inconvenient to the employee, or would be
detrimental to the discipline or security of the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be
subjective, based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a
definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or
reliability of the employee, must be alleged and proved.”
In State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others AIR 2005 SC 3272, repelled the
contention that even if by the misconduct of the employee the employer does not suffer any financial loss, he
can be removed from service in a case of loss of confidence.
17.
Thus, the Bank being a financial institution dealing with the public money, the employees of the
Bank are required to exhibit utmost honesty and integrity in day to day transaction/functioning. The
act of dishonesty or fraud or misappropriation lowers down the reputation of Bank in public. The
public lose their confidence in Bank, which affects Bank‘s business and finally the national
economy.
18.
Hon‘ble Apex Court in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 721 has observed that:
“7.
It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the
evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on
the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are
based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence
will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, the
courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental inquiries, except where
such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out
perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or
findings, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in
disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or
if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous
considerations.”
19.
In the instant case the charge of gross misconduct was found to be proved and principles of natural
justice were properly observed while conducting the departmental inquiry; and also the findings of
the Inquiry Officer are not found to be perverse; In the instant case the workman, committed gross
misconduct. He made unauthorized and fraudulent deposits by way of various instruments, in his
Saving Bank account and thereafter, withdrew these amounts fraudulently by way of various
withdrawal slips/instruments details mentioned in the charge sheet. This act of the workman was
prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, shows lack of honesty and integrity which is the core value
of service. Hence the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh to the proved
misconduct, at any stretch of imagination.
In light of above facts and proposition of law, the punishment awarded is held not disproportionate to the
charges proved.
Issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.
In light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.-
AWARD
Holding the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra, Bhopal in dismissing the services of
workman Shri Ashutosh Bramhadin Awasthi w.e.f. 29.11.2012, legal and justified, workman is held entitled to
no relief.”
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 13-10-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
7776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2280.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a22/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/07/2018-आईआर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National
Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/07/2018– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/22/2018
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri Pramod Kumar Raikwar,
S/o Sh. Tulidas Raikwar,
H.No. 256, W.No. 31, Near Sundarani Petrol Pump,
Bhander, Distt. – Datia (MP)
Workman
Versues
The Circle Head,
Punjab National Bank,
Zonal Office, HRD,
Arera Hills, Bhopal (MP)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 07th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 25/04/2018 of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification No. L-
12012/07/2018 (IR(B-II)) dt. 25/04/2018. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the Management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in terminating
the services of workman Shri Pramod Kumar Raikwar w.e.f. June, 2011 alleged to be working from May,
2007 is just & proper? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?”
After registering the case on the basis of reference 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 appointed by Bank as a Peon in June, 2007 and worked in the
Thared Branch of the Bank in District Datia as a Peon from 2007 to 2011. His services were not regularized by the
Bank though he continuously worked for four years. He preferred a Writ Petition No. 14556/2016 before High Court
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7777
of MP which was disposed after hearing writ order dated 20.12.2016 with a direction that his representation to be
filed by him a fresh before the Bank shall be decided by a reasoned order within 60 days from the date of
representation. He did file a representation in the light of said order which was arbitrarily dismissed by the Bank.
Thereafter, he raised a dispute before Regional Labour Commissioner, Bhopal. After failure of conciliation reference
was made to this Tribunal. According to the Workman his disengagement by Bank and not granting him permanent
status as an Employee is unjust, illegal and arbitrary and is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. He has
prayed that holding his disengagement in violation of the Act, he be entitled to be reinstated with back wages and
benefits.
Case of the Management Bank is mainly that, the workman was never appointed in the Bank hence there is
no question of termination of his services. His representation was discharged under the order of Hon‘ble High Court
mentioned above. In Bank, part-time sweepers are recruited through recruitment process. He never went through any
recruitment process. He was engaged as a casual daily labour on as and when required basis for which he was paid.
Management has requested that the reference be answered against the Workman.
In evidence, the Workman has filed photocopy of order of Hon‘ble High Court dated 20.12.2016 in W.P.
No. 14556/2016, reply of the Bank submitted by them before Regional Labour Commissioner, Bhopal, certain speed
post receipts, order of the Bank on his representation filed in the light of order of Hon‘ble High Court, internal
communication of the Bank dated 08.02.2017 marked as Exhibit W-1 to W-6.
He has filed his affidavit as his examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by the Management Bank.
The Management Bank has filed affidavit of its witness Yogesh Krishna Saxena as his examination in chief.
He has been cross-examined by Workman side.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the Workman Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. Neeraj Kewat Learned
Counsel for the Bank. I have gone through the record as well.
As it is clear from the pleadings, case of the Workman is that he was appointed as a daily wager by the Bank
and worked continuously form June, 2007 to June, 2011 whereas Management has taken a case that he was never
appointed by the Bank in any capacity rather he was engaged as a casual labour on as and when required basis for
which he was paid. The Workman has corroborated his this case in his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. His case
is supported by Exhibit W-6 which is the internal communication of the Bank filed and proved by him. This
communication indicates that, the Branch Office informed the Senior Manager HRD Circle Office, Gwalior that the
Workman had worked continuously from 2007 to 2009 on temporary basis, records of which were found in the
Branch and was paid. On the other hand, the Management witness which has reiterated the case of the Management
on this point states that, the Workman was engaged on leave gap arrangement for causal work or when regular staff is
on leave for the purposes of cleaning on intermittent basis, he worked only for 1 or 2 hours and was paid for it. He
never worked continuously in any year for 240 days or more. In his cross-examination he states that, he was not
posted in the Bank were the Workman was engaged. He admits that there is no written order of any Manager
engaging the Workman on leave vacancy as a stop gap arrangement. Exhibit W-6 is the admission from the Bank side
with regards to continuous engagement of the Workman from 2007 to 2009. So the case of the Management and
argument of Learned Counsel for Management that Workman was never engaged nor did he work continuously gets
demolished in the light of this admission which is further corroborated by on oath statement of workman as referred
to above. The Exhibit W-5 filed and proved are the cash vouchers of the payments made by the Bank to the
Workman. As compared to this evidence, there is a statement of the Management witness who admits that the
Workman was engaged on as and when required basis. It is further being mentioned here that the Management Bank
was directed to file documents, photocopy with respect to payment made to the Workman by Management Bank
which they did not file rather filed an affidavit that these documents are not available. Hence on the basis of the
evidences available on record, the case of the workman that he worked continuously as daily wager from 2007 to
2011 is found more reliable and is held proved.
As regards his disengagement, it is the case of the Workman that no notice or compensation was paid to him
which is not disputed by Management Bank, hence the disengagement of the Workman is held in violation of Section
25F and 25G of the Act.
In the light of above recorded findings, the issue arises with respect to relief to which Workman may be
entitled. The Learned Counsel for Management has submitted that the Workman was not appointed against permanent
or temporary vacancy following recruitment process. Hence his reinstatement will not be a just relief. I am inclined to
accept this argument of Management. In the light of tenure of engagement of the Workman and facts and
circumstances mentioned above, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of all the claims of the Workman
will meet the ends of justice to which he is entitled to recover from Bank within 30 days from the date of publication
of Award failing which interest @6% from the date of Award till payment.
In the light of above discussion and findings the reference is answered as follows:
7778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Holding the action of the Management of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Bhopal in terminating the
services of workman Shri Pramod Kumar Raikwar w.e.f. June, 2011 against law, he is held entitled to a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of all the claims of the Workman to be recovered from Bank within 30 days
from the date of publication of Award failing which interest @6% from the date of Award till payment.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 07/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2281.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
कॉपोरेिन बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV (a37/2016) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/8/2016-आईआर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 37/2016) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Corporation Bank
and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/8/2016– IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/37/2016
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Mohmmad Tarik
S/o Shri Taj Mohmmad,
R/o Near Old Post Office,
Gopalganj Sagar (M.P.)
Workman
Versues
1.
General Manager (P&A),
Corporation Bank,
Regional Office, R-11, 1st Floor,
Hardev Complex, Zone-2. M.P. Nagar,
Bhopal (M.P.)
2.
Branch Manager,
Corporation Bank
Sagar Branch,
District Sagar (M.P.)
Management
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7779
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 11th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 31/03/2016 of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‘)as per Notification
No. L- 12011/8/2016 (IR(B-II)) dt. 31/03/2016. The dispute under reference relates to:
―क्या प्रबॊधतॊत्र ब्ाॊच मैनेजर, कारऩोरेशन बैंक, सागर ब्ाॊच क्जऱा सागर मध्ये प्रदेश के प्रबॊधन द्वारा श्री मोहम्मद
ताररक आत्मज श्री ताज मोहम्मद को दैननक वेतन भोगी ऩेओन / मैसेंजर के ऩद ऩर ददनाॊक 27/6/2008 से 15/3/2013
तक कायय ऩर बनाये रखने ऩश्चात उसकी सेवाएॊ ननयममत न करते हुये ददनाॊक 15/3/2013 से सेवा समाक्तत की
काययवाह न्यायोगचत है ? यदद नह ॊ, तो सम्बॊगधत कमयचार ककस अनुतोष का हकदार है?‖
After registering the case on the basis of reference 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 appointed in the Sagar Branch of the Corporation Bank as a
Peon by the Branch Manager on 27.06.2008 and worked as a Peon from the said date continuously and regularly for
10 hours a day and to the satisfaction of his superiors till 29.05.2013 when his services were terminated without any
notice or compensation. He started from monthly pay of Rs. 1200/- a month and was last paid Rs. 3,000/- a month. He
discharged all the duties of peon namely cleaning of the Branch, opening and closing of the Branch, carrying
documents from one table to other table and discharging other duties as directed by his superiors. According to the
Workman Union, this action of Management is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act. Another daily wager
Amit Kumar was engaged by Bank after termination of the services of the Applicant Workman, which is in violation
of Rules 76 and 77 of Industrial Disputes Central Rules, 1947 (in short the ‗Rules‘) thus, the Bank has acted illegally
and arbitrarily in terminating his services under oral orders. It has been prayed that holding this action of Bank illegal
and arbitrary, the Applicant Workman be held entitle to be reinstated with all back-wages and benefits and be held
entitled to be regularized.
Case of the Management Bank is mainly that, the Workman was not recruited by Bank following any
recruitment process hence is not a Workman under the Act. He never worked for 240 days in any year with Bank in
any capacity. He was never paid wages by the Bank. There is no question of termination of his services by the Bank.
The Bank has prayed that reference be answered against the Workman.
It is mentioned here that, Corporation Bank merged into Union Bank of India hence, new Management of
Union Bank of India was impleaded during the proceeding.
In evidence, the Workman side has filed and proved the photocopy of reply of Bank submitted by them
before Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur during conciliation proceeding, letter of General Secretary of the
Union dated 03.11.2011 to General Manager Admin, Photocopy of clearing register entries, letters, cheques etc. total
13 in number marked as Exhibit W-2 and W-3. The Workman has further filed and proved letter of Assistant Labour
Commissioner for conciliation, circular of Ministry of Labour dated 20.06.2008, the recommendation of Branch
Manager dated 18.02.2013 regarding sub-staff which are Exhibit W-4 to W-8. The Applicant Workman has also filed
his affidavit as his examination-in-chief. He has been cross-examined on behalf of the Management.
The Bank has filed affidavit of Sudhir Shrivastava, Manager Union Bank of India as his examination-in-
chief. He has been cross-examined on the behalf of the Workman Union.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for the Workman Union Mr. Arun Patel. Learned Counsel for
Management Bank was not available at the time of argument. Parties were given opportunity to filed written
submissions if any. No written submissions have been filed. I have gone through the record in the light of arguments.
Following issues comes up for determination on perusal of record in the light of arguments –
1.
Whether the Workman has successfully proved his continuous engagement as defined under Section 25B
of the Act with the Management Bank?
2.
Whether disengagement of the Workman Tarik by the Bank is in violation of Section 25F and 25G of the
Act?
3.
Subject to findings on Issue No.1 & 2 whether the workman is entitle to any relief?
Issue No. 1-
Section 25B 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
7780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 have been detailed earlier on this issue. Case of the Workman Union is that, the
Workman Tarik worked continuously and regularly from 27.06.2008 to 29.05.2013 as a daily wager Peon for at least
10 hours a day and was paid his wages on monthly basis. Case of the Bank is that, he was never appointed against any
vacancy following recruitment process and he never worked for 240 days in any year or in the year preceding the date
of termination of his services.
In an affidavit as his examination-in-chief the workman has corroborated his allegations on this issue. He
has stated that, he was interviewed by the then Branch Manager for post of Peon and was appointed from 27.06.2008
as a Peon. He worked whole day from opening of the Branch till its closing. He has further detailed the works he used
to do. He also stated that, he worked continuously and regularly till date of his disengagement.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was not issued any appointment letter, he denied that he used
to work as a Daily Wager on as and when required basis. He also admits that he had appeared for interview for regular
selection of Peons along with Amit Soni. The Management witness has stated on this issue in his affidavit as his
examination-in-chief that the Workman did not work continuously for 240 days in any year. He was never selected
nor was appointed as a Peon following recruitment process. He nowhere says that he was engaged on as and when
required basis as a daily wager. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he was never posted in the said
Branch for the period during which the workman claims to be working in it, he admits that the salary of workman was
credited in his account on the basis of days he worked. He further admits that the Workman worked as a daily wager
but denies that he worked regularly and continuously. The witness admits the letter of the Branch Manager dated
18.02.2013 filed by the Workman. This letter is a certificate by the Branch Manager in which it is mention that the
Workman Mohd. Tarik is working in the Branch since the Branch opening day, he has a clean record and has good
behavior. He further states that, his status may be made permanent and has recommended it. This letter shows that it
was sent by the Branch Manager to Superior Officer with respect to the letter of the Superior Office/Officer. The
Witness also admits the photocopy bio-data attached with the letters. This fact corroborates the case of the Workman
and his statement on this issue. It is further corroborated by the photocopy of the reply of the Bank dated 25/04/2016
submitted during conciliation proceedings which is filed by the Workman and admitted by Management, it shows that
the Workman was engaged on casual basis as staff gap arrangement and as a daily wager. Thus, from the above
description of evidences, at least the case of the Management that the Workman was never employed by Bank in any
capacity gets demolished. It is established that, the workman was engaged by management Bank as a daily wager.
As regards, the point whether the Workman completed 240 days of continuous service is defined under the
Act. The Workman has stated that this fact in his statement on oath and also filed some photocopy payment
documents though they are not very consistent. It is relevant to mention here that the documents regarding payment of
wages to the Workman are with the Management Bank. When the Workman prima facie established that he was
established as a daily wager and also filed documents in this respect with a statement that he worked continuously for
240 days in every year. The burden shifts on Management Bank to rebut it by way of filing at least the documents
with respect to payment which are in their custody.
Hence, in the light of the above appreciative analysis of findings of both the sides, the fact and claim of
the Workman that he worked continuously with Bank for 240 days in every year till date of his disengagement
is held proved.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2 :-
Section 25F and 25G is being reproduced as follows :-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7781
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 nowhere the case of the Management that the Workman was issued any notice or was paid any
compensation.
The Case of Management Bank that Workman was engaged as Daily Wager on as and when required basis
has been held not proved, rather it has been held proved that the Workman worked continuously for 240 days in every
year till the date of his termination.
A plea has been taken by Management in their written statement that the Workman was not a workman as
defined under Section 2(s) of the Act because he was a daily wager. Section 2(s) of the Act is being reproduced 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.
It is clear mention that mode of appointment, nature of appointment and source of appointment are not the
determinative factors with regard to decision whether a person is a workman as defined under the Act or not.
As regards the case of the Workman that, whether Amit Soni is working in his place in absence of evidence
on this point this allegation is not proved. Hence, the termination of the services of the Workman is held in violation
of the Section 25G and 25F of the Act.
Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 3 –
As regards to the relief admissible to the Workman, his engagement for 5 years has been held proved. This
also established that, his appointment was temporary as a daily wage basis without following any recruitment process.
It is admitted by the workman that, he was given opportunity to try his luck in the recruitment process for regular
appointment, in which he appeared but could succeeded. Hence, in the light of this fact, his reinstatement is not a just
and proper relief.
In the light of all the facts and circumstances in the case in hand, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lacs only) in lieu of all his claims will meet the ends of justice to which he is held entitled to get from
7782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Management Bank within 30 days from the date of publication of Award, failing which interest @6% per annum from
the date of Award till payment.
Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.
On the basis of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.
AWARD
Holding the action of Management Bank in terminating the services Shri Mohammad Tarik from
15/3/2013 without regularizing his services after keeping him on the post of daily wage peon/messenger is unjust,
arbitrary and illegal, he is held entitled to get a lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs
only) in lieu of all his claims from Management Bank within 30 days from the date of publication of Award,
failing which interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Award till payment.
DATE:- 11/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2282.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
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;
II
ds iapkV (a221/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-आईआर(बी-I)-151]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 221/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public
Work Department and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR (B-I)-151]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
I.D. NO. 221/2021
Sh. Joginder Pandit & 04 Ors.
Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,
CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,
Shop No.-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
VERSUS
1. The Director General,
Central Public Work Department,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2.
The Director of Personal, P.W.D.,
11th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D. H.Q.)
I.T.O, New Delhi-110002.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7783
AWARD
24.11.2025
4.
This is an application U/s 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act‖) filed
by the claimants. Their names and particulars are given below-
Sr.
No
Name
Date of Joining
Present Division Office
1.
Joginder Pandit
18.01.1995
EE P.W.D North Building (M-322) Below
I.S.B.T
2.
Mohan Parkash Singh
29.01.2015
EE M 221 Delhi Sehlwal
3.
Parveen Mann
23.12.2001
M-413, Pragati Maidan, Ring Road, Delhi-
110002.
4
Ajay Kumar Mishra
29.09.2015
EE PWD South Bhawan, Sake Kort, Police
Training School (PTS) Malviya Nagar,
Mehrauli Road, New Delhi
5.
Deepak Rana
01.07.2016
M-241 SRD 1 Div. Lok Nayak Setu ITO
Delhi-110002.
All the workmen had joined the employment of the management from their respective date of appointment as
mentioned in the table hereinabove. They were engaged as daily rated / casual / Muster roll workers and were being
paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act by the appropriate government,
while their counterparts performing identical work and work of the same value was treated as regular employees.
Those regular employees were paid their salary in proper pay scale and allowances and were also enjoying other
facilities like uniform, EL, CL, Gazette/Festival/Restricted holidays, which were completely denied to the workman.
Workmen have unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to their credit. They have also submitted that they
had been working against the vacant posts since their initial date of joining. As such, the non-regularization of their
services from their retrospective initial dates of joining in proper pay-scale and allowances, and non-payment of
difference of salary on the principle of ―equal pay for equal work‖ with all arrears is totally illegal, bad, unjust and
malafide and amounts to unfair labour practice. A demand notice was served upon to the managements, but no reply
was received and it was presumed that the demand had been rejected. They had approached the conciliation, but, no
result was yielded. Hence, they filed the present claim with the prayer that they be regularized in services and be paid
the entire difference of salary on the principle of ―Equal Pay for Equal Work‖ with retrospective effect from their
initial date of joining.
2.
Management no. 1 & 2 have already been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.04.2022.
3.
Now, the matter is listed for ex-parte workman evidence. Claimants are required to be examined. On
23.01.2025, a notice was also issued to the claimants for appearance; however, neither the claimants nor their
authorized representative has been appearing since long.
3.
In these circumstances, when the claimants are not interested in pursuing their case, this tribunal has no
option but to dismiss the claim. Hence, the claim stands dismissed. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this
award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act. File is consigned to record
room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2283.—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;
II
ds iapkV (a256/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-आईआर(बी-I)-152]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
7784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 256/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Public
Work Department and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/20258– IR (B-I)-152]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL – CUM – LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI
I.D. NO. 256/2022
Sh. Joginder Pandit & 04 Ors.
Through- The President Sh. Hukum Chand,
CPWD Karamchari Union, Babu Lal Ji Complex,
Shop No.-04, Gurgaon Road, Opposite Bus Stand,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.
VERSUS
1. The Director General,
Central Public Work Department,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2.
The Director of Personal, P.W.D.,
11th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D. H.Q.)
I.T.O, New Delhi-110002.
3.
Work Cum T.L.Q. (A),
Special Director of General, Project & Chandigarh,
CPWD kendriya Sadan Chandigarh-160009.
4.
PWD Secretary,
11th Floor, MSO Building (P.W.D.H.Q.),
I.T.O, New Delhi-110002.
AWARD
24.11.2025
1.
This is an application U/s 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act‖) filed
by the claimants. Their names and particulars are given below-
Sr.
No
Name
Date of Joining
Present Division Office
1.
Joginder Pandit
18.01.1995
EE P.W.D North Building (M-322)
2.
Mohan
29.01.2015
EE M 221 Delhi Sehlwal
3.
Parveen Mann
23.12.2001
M-413, Pragati Maidan, Ring Road, Delhi-
110002.
4
Ajay Kumar Mishra
29.09.2015
EE PWD South Bhawan, Sake Kort, Police
Training
School
(PTS)
Malviya
Nagar,
Mehrauli Road, New Delhi
5.
Deepak Rana
01.07.2016
M-241 SRD 1 Div. Lok Nayak Setu ITO
Delhi-110002.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7785
All the workmen had joined into the employer of the management from their respective date of appointment as
mentioned in the table herein above. Their dispute regarding regularization of their services is pending. After
receiving the notice from the Conciliation, management started misbehaving with the workmen and threatening them
to terminate from their services which is an illegal act of retaliation and shows that managements are annoyed due to
pending dispute. Hence, they filed the application under section 33-A of the Act with the prayer that management be
directed not to terminate the services of the workmen during the pendency of the subject dispute.
2.
All the Managements have already been proceeded ex-parte on 10.04.2023.
3.
Now, the matter is listed for ex-parte workman evidence. Claimants are required to be examined. On
23.01.2025, a notice was also issued to the claimants for appearance; however, neither the claimants nor their
authorized representative has been appearing since long.
5.
In these circumstances, when claimants are not interested in perusing their case, this tribunal has no option
but to dismiss their application. Hence, application under section 33-A of the Act stands dismissed. Award is
passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the
I.D. Act. File is consigned to record room.
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 31 ददसम् बर, 2025
का.आ. 2284.—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;
II
ds iapkV (a127/2018, 128/2018, 129/2018,
130/ 2018, 131/2018, 132/2018/150/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2025-आईआर(बी-I)-153]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 31st December, 2025
S.O. 2284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes t he Award (Ref.127/ 2018,128/ 2018,129/2018, 130/2018,131/ 2018, 132/2018,
150/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Central Public Work Department and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2025– IR (B-I)-153]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 127/2018
Smt. Kalpana Sharma, W/o Sh. Surender Sharma,
C/o: Through- General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (NRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No.- 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi-110032.
I.D. No. 128/2018
Sh. Shan Mohammad, S/o Sh. Jahur Baksh,
C/o: Through- General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (NRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No.- 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi-110032.
7786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
I.D. No. 129/2018
Sh. Kanwar pal, S/o Sh. Bishamber,
C/o: Through- General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (NRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No.- 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi-110032.
I.D. No. 130/2018
Sh. Sunny Basist, S/o Firey Ram,
C/o: Through- General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (NRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No.- 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi-110032.
I.D. No. 131/2018
Smt. Rajbala, W/o Vijender,
C/o: Through- General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (NRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No.- 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi-110032.
I.D. No. 132/2018
Sh. Pawan, S/o Jagdish Prasad,
C/o: Through- General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (NRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No.- 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi-110032.
I.D. No. 150/2018
Sh. Prem Giri, S/o Sh. Dev Giri,
C/o: Through- General Secretary,
All India Central PWD (NRM) Karamchari Sangathan (Regd.)
House No.- 4823, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,
Shahdra, New Delhi-110032.
Versus
M/s The Superintendent, Delhi Circle,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Puratatwa Bhawan,
GPO Campus, E- Block, INA, New Delhi.
AWARD
05.12.2025
1.
By this composite order, I shall dispose of these seven applications U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (herein after referred to as ―the Act‖) filed by the different claimants against the same respondents. Having
the common respondents and same cause of action, these cases are taken together for the purpose of deciding of these
cases. Names and particulars of their employment are given under-
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7787
List of Workmen
Sr. no
Name
Post
Dates of Joining
Dates of
Termination
Salary (In Rs.)
1
Kalpana
Sharma
Beldar
01.07.2006
12.02.2018
9000-10000 p.m
2
Sh.
Shan
Mohd.
Beldar
01.05.2017
13.02.2018
9000-10000 p.m
3
Kanwar Pal
Beldar
10.05.2017
13.02.2018
9000-10000 p.m
4
Sunny Basist
Beldar
01.04.2017
12.02.2018
9000-10000 p.m
5
Smt. Rajbala
Beldar
28.02.2000
12.02.2018
9000-10000 p.m
6
Pawan
Beldar
01.04.2017
13.02.2018
9000-10000 p.m
7.
Prem Giri
Beldar
01.09.2016
16.03.2018
9000-10000 p.m
2. Workmen in their claim statement have asserted that they were working as ―Beldar‖ on a contractual basis at the last
drawn salary of Rs. 9,000-10,000/- per month. They were working in the campus of Red Fort and Humayun Tomb
respectively. Works performed by workmen are of perennial in nature. Their services were terminated by the
management in the year 2018 (mentioned above) without assigning any reason and without giving any notice, notice
pay and retrenchment compensation etc. which is the violation of the provisions of the I.D Act. After terminating the
services of the workmen, others workmen were immediately appointed by the above said management through
contractor. Workmen connected to these cases have sent the representation on 8.03.2018 and 09.03.2018 respectively
by speed post through his authorized union for reinstatement w.e.f. the date of illegal termination. When the
representation of the workmen was not entertained by the above management, they have requested the office bearers of
this Sangathan for extending necessary help to them and the Central Committee of the Sangathan passed an espousal to
this effect for helping the workmen by way of filing a case before the Conciliation Officer. Conciliation Officer had
served the notices to both the parties for appearing in the hearings but, the above management under his adamant
behavior refused to reinstate their service of the workmen. Hence, they have filed the present claims with the prayer
that they be reinstated with full back wages.
2.
Notices were issued to the management, who had appeared and filed it written statement. He had taken
several preliminary objection inter-alia that Archaeological Survey of India is neither an industry nor industrial
establishment undertaking so as to attract the provisions of I.D Act; Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is
discharging its duties for the preservation and conversation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological
sites which are declared to be of national importance; Archaeological Survey of India has not violated any provision of
the I.D Act and every action is within the ambit of law; reference is bad in law and without application of mind.
3.
On merits, respondent admitted that these workmen were engaged on daily wages as ―Beldar‖ as alleged. It
was also submitted that respondent was hiring casual labours as and when required for casual or intermittent nature of
work not for full time, and only on daily wage basis. Management submitted that workmen had never been appointed
against any post borne on regular establishment of the department; therefore, the question of termination with or
without serving any notice does not arise. He submits that claims be dismissed.
4.
Rejoinders have been filed by the claimants affirming the averments, what has been stated by them in their
claim statement and denying the averments made by the respondent in the WS.
5.
After completion of the pleadings, identical issues have been framed in all the cases vide order
dated 06.02.2019 i.e.–
1.
Whether the proceeding is maintainable.
2.
Whether the service of the workmen were terminated illegally by the management in violation of statutory
provision.
3.
Whether the workmen are entitled to reinstatement of services with full back wages.
4.
To what other relief the workmen are entitled to.
6.
In order to prove his case, workmen had appeared in the witness box. They had filed the affidavit in support
of their claims. They have reiterated the averment made by them in the claim statement. In rebuttal, management has
examined one witness Sh. Ankur Vats. He has also reiterated the stand taken by the respondent in his WS. He had
relied upon the two documents i.e. MW1/1 and MW1/2.
7788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7.
Whole of the argument of the workmen centered around the fact that they had been appointed as ―Beldar‖ on
daily wage basis on the dates mentioned herein above and their services have been terminated without following the
provisions of the Act. As such, their termination be declared as illegal and they be reinstated. They also stated that they
had worked more than 240 days.
8.
On the other hand, management‘s case is that Archaeological Survey of India is neither an industry nor an
industrial establishment and they have been performing the sovereign functions. In support of their contentions he has
relied the judgment of Bhagirath Sharma S/o Sh. Radheshyam Sharma vs. Superintendent, Archaeological
Survey of India, Jaipur passed by the Hon‘ble CGIT and Labour Court whereby it was held that Industrial Dispute
Act does not attract the Archaeological Survey of India. Moreover their case is that workmen were appointed as daily
wages as Beldar. Respondent was hiring casual labours as and when required for casual or intermittent nature of work
not for full time. Moreover, the policy has been changed by the Government of India and the Archaeological Survey of
India was also directed to disengage the workers due to change of the policy because Government of India has adopted
the outsource policy.
9.
In the light of the above evidence and argument advanced by the respective AR of the party in advance, my
issue wise findings are as follows.
10.
Issue No. 1- It is also important to mention here that respondent has taken the plea that the proceeding is not
maintainable because alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute because Archaeological Survey of India is
discharging his sovereign function. However, keeping the monumental faith and employing the casual labour for
guarding and cleaning their sites does not come within the purview of the sovereign functions. If the plea of the
management is taken as true then every government functionary would be exempted from the purview of Industrial
Law. Job of the workmen are the Beldar for cleaning, grass cutting and other manual job. It is the common knowledge
that people use to come to visit the monument for seeing the monument and there is no evidence led by the
management contrary to the fact that no one is allowed to visit the above said sites. It is further the common knowledge
that visitors visiting the site used to pay the fee. Therefore the management even though, being the government
functionaries has come within the definition of an industry if we applied the triple test laid down by the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court for abundant in Bangalore Water Supply Case. Admittedly the workman had been employed as casual
labour on the different dates as mentioned in their claim, however, nothing contrary had been brought on record.
11.
Respondent has taken the plea and relied the judgment of Bhagirath Sharma S/o Sh. Radheshyam Sharma
vs. Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, Jaipur passed by the Hon‘ble CGIT and Labour Court of
Jaipur, whereby it has been held that Industrial is not attracted with the Archaeological Survey of India, however,
respectfully I am not agreed with the above said decision. Therefore, this issue has gone in favour of the workmen.
12.
Issue no. 2- All the workmen have claimed to have worked with the management from different dates as
―Beldar‖.
13.
Before parting the decision on this issues, text of Section 2 (oo) and 25F of the Act are required to be
produced herein:
Section 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;
section 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 2 [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 3 [or such authority
as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7789
Definition of retrenchment has been couched in a comprehensive manner. It covers every type of termination
of the service of the workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action. The case of voluntary retirement of the workman, retirement on reaching the age of
superannuation, termination of service as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment or of such contract
being terminated under a stipulation contained therein or termination of the service of the workman on the ground of
continued ill health by condition doesn‘t fall within the ambit of retrenchment.
14.
Workmen have stated that without compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, their services have
been terminated. For this, they have led their evidence. However, the workmen namely Sh. Shan Mohd., Kanwar Pal,
Sunny Basist and Pawan at Sr. No. 2, 3, 4 & 6 had not led any evidence to show that they have worked for 240 days in
a calendar. Section 25F of the Act prescribes the condition precedent to retrenchment of worker. It has been worded
that no worker employed in any industry that has been in continuous services for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched. However, the workmen have to prove first that they have worked one year continuously.
Continuous service of one year means that at least he has worked 240 days in a calendar year. Admittedly, the
management has not followed any of these conditions. They disengaged the services of the workmen without
complying of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, in respect of Smt. Kalpana Sharma (01.07.2006 to 12.02.2018),
Smt. Rajbala (28.02.2000 to 12.02.2018) and Sh. Prem Giri (01.09.2016 to 16.03.2018).
15.
Nothing has been brought by the respondent to buttress the fact that these workmen had not worked for 240
days in any calendar year. Once the workmen assert that they have worked for more than one year then, than the burden
shifts to the management to prove otherwise. Here, the management has failed to rebut the same.
16.
Management further pleaded that services of these workmen have been disengaged because of the change of
the government policy. In 2017, government has brought the General Finance Rules (GFR), under which casual
labours, muster roll labours have been made outsource, so, their services have been disengaged. However, the
government decision cannot change or alter the industrial law. Change of policy does not mean that department can fire
the employee at any time without following the procedure prescribed by law. Industrial law does not differentiate
between the regular workman, temporary workman, muster roll employee or daily wager. He can, but, he has to follow
the procedure. Judgment of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi & Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1], relied by the management
does not come in the way regarding the illegal termination.
17.
In view of the above discussion, ID No. 128/2018 (Shan Mohammad vs. Archaeological Survey of India), ID
No. 129/2018 (Kanwar Pal vs. Archaeological Survey of India), ID No. 130/2018 (Sunny Basist vs. Archaeological
Survey of India) and ID No. 132/2018 (Pawan vs. Archaeological Survey of India) stand dismissed, as the workmen
failed to prove that they had ever worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Their services are merely for eight
months or less than eight months, so, they cannot say that they have completed 240 days in a calendar year.
18.
So far so, the ID No. 127/2018 (Smt. Kalpana Sharma vs. Archaeological Survey of India), ID No. 131/2018
(Smt. Rajbala vs. Archaeological Survey of India) and ID No. 150/2018 (Sh. Prem Giri vs. Archaeological Survey of
India) are concerned. Their disengagement amounts to be declared illegal.
Relief
Generally, when the termination is held illegal then naturally reinstatement with full back wages would follow.
However, in the present case, these three workmen have claimed to have worked as ―Beldar‖. Their claims are not for
regularization; their claims are that their services as Beldar have been terminated illegally; therefore, putting them as
casual labour like Beldar is not an appropriate relief. Rather than, lump sum compensation is an appropriate relief
against their illegal disengagement from the services. Considering the length of services of Smt. Rajbala, Smt. Kalpana
and Sh. Prem Giri which they did with the respondent for 18 years, 12 years & 2 years respectively, a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 8 Lac, Rs. 6 Lac & Rs. 2 Lac respectively are considered as an appropriate relief. Hence, the
management is hereby directed to pay the compensation within two months of notification of this award, failing which
the management shall also pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of award till the date of
realization. Award is passed accordingly. A copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for notification
under section 17 of the I.D. Act. A copy of this award is placed in each of the file. Records of these files are consigned
to record room.
Dated 05.12.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
7790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 1 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2285.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
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;
ds iapkV (71/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-01]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 1st January, 2026
S.O. 2285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 71/2021) 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-12025/01/2026– IR (B-I)-01]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW.
I.D. No. 71/2021
Ref. No.K-10/1-5/2021-IR Dated: 28.05.2021
Shri Radhey Shyam S/o Late Murlidhar,
C/o Shri Parvez Alam, 283/63 Kha,
Garhi Kanaura (Premwati Nagar),
Post Manak Nagar, Lucknow-226011. .……………Appellant
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.(UP).
The Assistant Divisional Engineer-I,
Northern Railway, Sultanpur. (U.P.). .………... Respondents
AWARD
By order No.K-10/1-5/2021-IR Dated: 28.05.2021, the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:
"Whether the action of the management of Northern Railway, Lucknow over alleged termination of the
services of Shri Radhey Shyam S/O Late Murlidhar, Casual Worker w.e.f. 15.05.1981 after rendering service
of more than 120 days as Casual Labour, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman
is entitled to and from which date?"
Accordingly, the present I.D. Case No. 71/2021 has registered before this tribunal.
On 26.04.2022/10.10.2022, workman filed claim statement in brief facts stated are that workman was initially
engaged with the respondent on 15.12.1977, in a said capacity he has worked up till 14.05.1981.
On 15.05.1981, respondent terminated/retrenched his services without following the provision of 25F of the Industrial
Dispute Act.
Accordingly it is prayed that order of termination/retrenchment dated 15.05.1981, may be set aside, and it may be
reinstated back in his services, over and above to his juniors.
On behalf of respondent written statement has been filed, thereafter rejoinder has been filed.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7791
In spite of the notice neither the workman nor any legal representative on his behalf appeared.
Shri GC Rai learned counsel for respondent raised a preliminary objection that cause of action arises on the part of the
workman on 15.05.1981, thereafter he raised the Industrial Dispute on the basis of which the reference has been made
on 28.05.2021,so the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, so workman is not entitled for any relief.
In order to decide said controversy it would be appropriate to it would state following facts:
In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. 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."
Also, in 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.
7792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. It is now well-settled principle of law that "delay de-feats equity".
(see also Haryana State Co-operative Land Development Bank v. Neelam (2005) 5 SCC 91)
Further, in the present case, it is also not in dispute rather admitted by the workman he 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 v.
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:
"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."
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7793
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."
Reverting to the facts of present case, as the relief which is claimed by the workman pertains to year 1981 in respect
to which grievance has been raised in the year 2021, so the same cannot be granted in view of the position of law as
stated herein above.
AWARD
For the foregoing reasons the workman is not entitled for any relief as per the Reference No.K-10/1-5/2021-IR Dated:
28.05.2021, and the same is answered accordingly.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
11th December, 2025
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2286.—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;
I
ds iapkV (a271/2024) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-02]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
7794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 271/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. I Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026– IR (B-I)-02]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No. 271/2024
Sh. Sanjay S/o Sardar Singh Through Rashtriya Udyog Mazdoor Union, Indraprasth Colony, Burari, Delhi- 110084.
…Claimant
Versus
1.
The Manager, M/s Core Security Services, M-2 Meza, 9th Floor, Gupta Tower Commercial Complex,
Delhi-110033.
2.
The Regional Director/Manager, State Bank of India, 16, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
…Management
AWARD
1.
This is an application under Section 2-A of the I.D. Act whereby, the applicant made prayer that his
termination from the service on 30.05.2018 by the management which be declare illegal and unjustified and he be
reinstated with full back wages. He has not been provided any legal facilities. When the workman went to join his job
he was illegally terminated form his service on 30.05.2018 without any rhyme or reason and without conducted any
domestic enquiry by the management. He has initiated the conciliation proceeding but, no result. Hence, he had filed
the present claim petition.
2.
Notice was issued to the both the managements for appearance and filing of their rebuttal written statement.
But notice returned to the office with remarks like ‗no such bank exist in the address‘ or ‗left without address‘.
Thereafter, claimant was directed to furnish fresh addresses of both the managements. Despite several opportunities,
claimant did not provide any address. Also, the claimant is not appearing in the tribunal to substantiate his claim.
3.
Hence, in these circumstances this tribunal has no option except to pass the no dispute award. No dispute
award is passed accordingly. File is consigned to the record room. A copy of this award is hereby send to the
appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Let a copy of this Award be sent for publication as required under Section 17 of Act.
Date: 14.07.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2287.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
नौसेना मु्यालय
)
स्ट्टाफ ऑदफसर एसीओपी
)
एसी
(
, मेससड 3151, मोजहत बाबा सुरक्षा एजेंसी(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;
II
ds iapkV (a204/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-03]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 204/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7795
No. II Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Naval
Headquarter ( Staff Offcier ACOP(AC), M/s 3151, Vmohit Bawa Security Agency and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026– IR (B-I)-03]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT NO-II, NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 204/2018
Sh. Sadhu Singh, S/o Jaipal Singh,
Address:- House No. 171, Gali No. 10,
Pipeline, Behta Hazipur, Ghaziabad,
U.P. Pin Code-201102.
Versus
1.
Naval Headquarters (Staff Officer ACOP (AC),
Annexue Building, Talkatora Stadium,
New Delhi-110003.
2.
M/s 3151, Vmohit Bawa Security Agency,
B-203, Samanvay CGHS, Plot No. 82,
Sector-56, Gurgaon-122002.
AWARD
27.11.2025
This is an application U/S 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ―the Act‖) filed
by the claimant for his illegal termination. He has stated in his claim that he was working with the management-2 i.e.
contractor w.e.f. 13.02.2017 to 05.03.2018 at the post of Security Supervisor and his salary was Rs. 28,680, however
the management-2 provided the salary of Rs. 18,179/- to him. He was performing his duty honestly, diligently and
sincerely and never given any chance to the managements to complaint. In the month of March 2018 when he
demand his deducted salary and overtime amount from the management, management got annoyed and suddenly on
05.03.2018, Field Officer of management no. 2 called the workman on phone and told him not to go for the duty with
the management no. 1 and disconnected the phone. Many times he called the said officer on phone and also tried to
contact the management no. 2, but all in vain. He has gone to the conciliation officer, but no result was yielded.
Hence, he filed the present claim with the prayer that he be reinstated in services with full back wages.
Management no. 1 has filed its WS, denying the averment made in the claim. He also submitted that there is
no relationship of employer and employee. He submitted that claim is liable to be dismissed.
Management no. 2, vide order dated 03.04.2019, has already been proceeded ex-parte.
Issues have been framed on 23.09.2019. Matter is listed for workman evidence. Workman submits that he
wants to withdraw the present claim. His statement has been recorded separately.
In view of the above submission made by the claimant, claim stands dismissed as withdrawn. Award is
passed accordingly. A copy of this award is sent to appropriate government for notification under section 17 of the
I.D. Act. Record of this file is consigned to record room.
Date: 27.11.2025
ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2288.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार, सीजनयर सुपररटेंडेंट ऑफ पोस्ट्ट ऑदफस, कन्याकुमारी जडवीजन: सीजनयर पोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, नागरकोइल हेड पोस्ट्ट
ऑदफस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री टी. रजव, कन्याकुमारी, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक
7796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
जववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई पंचाट (संदभड सं्या- 1/2017) को जजसा दक
अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज
[सं. एल-40012/17/2016-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kanyakumari Division: The Senior Post Master, Nagarcoil Head
Post Office and Sh. T. Ravi, Kanyakumari, worker.
[No. L-40012/17/2016-IR(DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 1/2017
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 25-09-2025
Sh. T. Ravi,
S/o Thangappan Kannanpatti,
Devakulam Post,
Kanyakumari-629704
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Kanyakumari Division, Nagarcoil :
2nd Party / 1st Respondent
The Senior Post Master,
Nagarcoil Head Post Office,
Nagercoil
:
2nd Party / 2st Respondent
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/17/2016-IR(DU) dated
16.12.2016 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the action of the Management of Department of Posts, Nagercoil Division in Stopping / removing Shri T.
Ravi, as Ex-Driver with effect from 01.02.2015 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled
to?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 16.12.2016 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 1/2017, and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance.
3.
ID called out. It is informed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner on 27.07.2022 that the petitioner was
died. No application for substitution of legal heirs has been filed. Hence the claim petition stands abetted.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7797
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2289.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार कायडकारी जनदेिक, भारत हेवी इलेजक्रकल्स जलजमटेड, जत्रजचरापल्ली, तजमलनाडु के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों
और कायडकारी अध्यक्ष, बॉयलर प्लांट कमडचारी संघ, जत्रजचरापल्ली, श्री. वी. आनंद, संयुक्त सजचव, वक्सड कमेटी सदस्ट्य,
बीएचईएल, जत्रजचरापल्ली, महासजचव, भारत हेवी इलेजक्रकल्स वकडसड यूजनयन, (सीटू), जत्रजचरापल्ली, महासजचव, लेबर
जलबरेिन राटंट, बीएचईएल, जत्रजचरापल्ली, तजमलनाडु, महासजचव, बॉयलर प्लांट वकडसड यूजनयन (एनडीएलएफ),
बीएचईएल, जत्रजचरापल्ली, तजमलनाडु, महासजचव, बीएचईएल पेररयार थोजझलालर नाला उरीमाई संगम, बीएचईएल,
जत्रजचरापल्ली सहायक महाप्रबंधक, बीएचईएल पट्टाली थोजझर संगम, जत्रजचरापल्ली, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि
औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई पंचाट (संदभड सं्या- 21/2023) को
जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं. एल-42012/2/2023-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu and The Working President,
Boiler Plant Employees Union, Trichirapalli, Sh. V. Anand,Joint Secretary, Works Committee Member,
BHEL, Trichirapalli, The General Secretary, Bharat Heavy Electricals Workers Union, (CITU), Trichirapalli,
The General Secretary, Labour Liberation Front, BHEL, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu, The General Secretary,
Boiler Plant Workers Union (NDLF), BHEL, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu, The General Secretary, BHEL
Periyar Thozhilalar Nala Urimai Sangam,BHEL, Trichirapalli, The Assistant General Manager, BHEL Pattali
Thozhir Sangam, Trichirapalli, worker.
[No. L-42012/2/2023-IR(DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 21/2023
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 24-09-2025
The Working President,
Boiler Plant Employees Union,
C/o BHEL, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu
:
1st Party/1st Petitioner
Sh. V. Anand,
Joint Secretary,
Works Committee Member,
BHEL, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu :
1st Party/2nd Petitioner
The General Secretary,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Workers Union,
(CITU), C/o BHEL, Trichirapalli
:
1st Party/3rd Petitioner
7798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The General Secretary,
Labour Liberation Front, BHEL
Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu
:
1st Party/4th Petitioner
The General Secretary,
Boiler Plant Workers Union (NDLF),
BHEL, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu :
1st Party/5th Petitioner
The General Secretary,
BHEL Periyar Thozhilalar Nala
Urimai Sangam,
BHEL, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu :
1st Party/6th Petitioner
The Assistant General Manager,
BHEL Pattali Thozhir Sangam,
BHEL, Trichirapalli, Tamil Nadu :
1st Party/7th Petitioner
AND
The Executive Director,
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
Kailasapuram, Trichirapalli,
Tamil Nadu
:
2nd Party / Respondent
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-42012/2/2023(IR(DU)
dated 13.03.2023 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the claim of Boiler Plant Employees Union, Works Committee Member V. Anand, Bharath Heavy
Electricals Worker‘s Union, Labour Liberation Front, Boiler Plant Workers Union, BHEL Periyar
Thozhilalar Nala Urimai Sangam and BHEL Pattali Thozhir Sangam, Trichirappalli vide letter dated
23.09.2022/ 26.09.2022/ 27.09.2022/06.10.2022 that the transfer of 3 workers from BHEL, Trichirapalli Unit
to BHEL, Ranipet Unit by the management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichirapalli is unfair
labour practice as the said employees have been transferred due to their active involvement in union
activities is proper, legal and justified under ID Act, 1947? If yes, to what relief the disputants is entitled and
what direction, if any, is necessary in the matter?”
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 13.03.2023 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 21/2023 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
01.06.2023. Neither the Petitioners nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further
adjournment to 03.08.2023. The Petitioners did not turn up. It reveals from the body of reference that while the
appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 13.03.2023 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were
sent to the Petitioners and the opposite party. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the
reference. Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioners were once again directed to appear and to file claim
statement fixing the case to 15.07.2025, 02.09.2025 and 24.09.2025. The Petitioners did not turn up nor were any
authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf present. The claim statement was not furnished in any manner
by the Petitioners. The Respondent represented in this case. It reveals the Petitioners, despite of sufficient opportunity
choose not to appear or to file claim statement and documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which
would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal.
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioners have got no interest to proceed with
the case. Thus, in the result the reference is answered against the petitioners.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7799
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2290.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार महाप्रबंधक, मेससड भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स जलजमटेड, नंदांबक्कम, चेन्नई, महाप्रबंधक, एचआर-को, मेससड भारत
इलेक्रॉजनक्स जलजमटेड, नागावरा, बेंगलुरु, अध्यक्ष और प्रबंध जनदेिक, मेससड भारत इलेक्रॉजनक्स जलजमटेड, बेंगलुरु के
प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और सजचव, बीईएल-टेक्स कमडचारी यूजनयन, नंदांबक्कम, चेन्नई, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में
जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई पंचाट (संदभड
सं्या- 30/2022) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज ।
[सं. एल-14011/03/2022-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The General Manager, M/s. Bharath Electronics Limited, Nandambakkam,Chennai, The General Manager,
HR-Co M/s. Bharath Electronics Limited, Nagavara, Bengaluru, The Chairman & Managing Director,
M/s.Bharath
Electronics
Limited,
Bengaluru
and
The
Secretary,
BEL-TEX
Employees
Union,
Nandambakkam, Chennai, worker.
[No. L-14011/03/2022-IR(DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Date: 12-09-2025
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Industrial Dispute No. 30/2022
BETWEEN
The Secretary,
BEL-TEX Employees Union,
C/o. Bharath Electronics Limited,
Nandambakkam,
Chennai-600 089.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
1.
The General Manager,
M/s.Bharath Electronics Limited,
Nandambakkam,Chennai-600 089.
2.
The General Manager HR-Co
M/s.Bharath Electronics Limited,
Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,
Bengaluru-560 045.
3.
The Chairman & Managing Director,
M/s.Bharath Electronics Limited,
7800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Outer Ring Road, Nagavara,
Bengaluru-560 045. .
:
II Party/ Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
Party in person
For the II Party/Respondent
:
Mrs. Hema Raghavendra Rao, AR
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. L-14011/03/2022 (IR)(DU)
dated 18.05.2022 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the demand raised by BEL-Tex Employee‟s Union against the management of M/s Bharat
Electronics Limited, Chennai on the issue of 12 charter of demands, (as per in Annexure „A‟) are just and
fair? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to?”
Annexure ‗A‘:
1. Action Should be taken against officer who has acted unlawfully and against the DPE Guidelines OM No.W-
02/0039/2017-DPE(WC)-GLXVI/20 dated 19.11.2020 by issuing the circular dated 26.11.2020 violating Tripartite
Agreement signed before the Dy.CLC.
2. All charges leveled against Officer Bearers of BEL-TEX Employees Union should be withdrawn in relation to the
DA freeze issue and Revoke the suspension of L.SINGARAVELU (Staff No 209556) - General Secretary of BEL-
TEX Employees Union and reinstate the condition prior to suspension.
3. Settle the long pending PPI Issue at the earliest by providing Rs.85000/-as PART-A and 25% of PART-A as
PART-B Amount.
4. Common Term Insurance scheme based on wages across all BEL stakeholders in BEL.
5. Resolve the long pending Medical issues like inclusion of new panel hospital, billing issues. Constitute a committee
by including workers representative.
6. Provide 1500 hours per annum for union related work(Union Time-off).
7. Regularise all contract workers in perennial jobs in BEL-Chennai; Abolish FTE, NEEM, NETAP; Provide equal
wages for equal work as per article 39(D) of Constitution of India for the Contract workers also as per as directives
of Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement under Article 141 of Constitution of India and consequent DOPT, DPE
Guidelines.
8. Contract labourers should be given Wages, canteen facilities, P.F. ESI, LEAVE, Job Security, right to join Union
and other benefits like permanent employees.
9. Canteen Calculation to be done taking into consideration contract labour head count also like in Bangalore unit
from 2014 and amount to be refunded to the workers.
10. Recommend for Providing Minimum Pension 7500 per month to all workers, scrap NPS and restore earlier
Pension, improve EPS-95.
11.Conduct a Proper Transparent Investigation of the scam that has taken place in BEL-CHENNAI and take action
against the concerned.
12.Respect and comply with Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution of India, human rights,
implement industrial democracy, collective bargaining, trade union & democratic rights.
2.
During the course of hearing, the present association submits an application which is not supported by an
affidavit not to press the ID No.30/2022. The Respondent also filed a similar application which was addressed to
the Management by the Association requesting not to press ID No.30/2022. But, this memo filed by the
Respondent action was not supported by affidavit. Therefore, this reference cannot be decided on the basis of
application filed by new association and the Respondent.
3.
Although, this fact was not denied by Shri L.Singaravelu that at present he is not the General Secretary of
the Association/Union. Hence, it is a matter of chance that at the time of filing of I.D., Mr.L.Singaravelu was the
Secretary of the Union. The Union raised 12 points as mentioned above. But, none appeared on behalf of the
Union to support its claim raised in the present industrial dispute. Only Mr. L.Singaravelu appeared before this
Tribunal and filed his affidavit in support of all the 12 points raised in the industrial dispute. But, since he is not
the Secretary of the Union, he is not able to prove all the 12 points/demands raised by the Union. It is the union
association who has right, authority and legal sanctity to prove the 11 points raised in the industrial dispute, except
point No.2, which relates to suspension of Mr. L.Singaravelu, because these 11 points relate to common interest
of the workmen, who were members of the association.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7801
4.
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 describes two provisions with regard to filing reference
before this Tribunal-
i) Appropriate Central Govt. may refer the industrial dispute to this Tribunal;
ii) After amendment, this right has been given to workmen also for filing directly before this Tribunal.
5.
However, this matter was referred by the Central Government with regard to 12 points as mentioned above
in Annexure ‗A‘ and this dispute was referred on the agitation raised by the association/Union and not by
Mr.L.Singaravelu alone, and I repeat it again, that Mr. L.Singaravelu is not competent to prove all the 12 demands
raised by the union.
6.
The provisions of section 11 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers this Tribunal in order to determine a
case by and to whom and to what extent and subject to what conditions, if any directions are to be given are purely
on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. Since the union/association is not pursuing the present
industrial dispute case to prove all the points raised by the union, in my opinion, Mr. L.Singaravelu can represent
and press for his own case which is specifically raised as point no.2, which relates to suspension of Mr.
L.Singaravelu.
7.
Mr. L.Singaravelu has filed 12 documents. The first letter dated 11.02.2020 is written by the Respondent-3
to the Petitioner for office hours of trade union. The second letter dated 28.01.2022 was sent by Union to Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Chennai. The third document is dated 08.03.2019 relates to pension form Petitioner to
Respondent. The fourth document is dated 29.09.2021 which relates to copy of memorandum regarding insurance
policy of Respondent-1. The fifth document is dated 30.10.2021 is letter from Petitioner to Respondent-2
regarding PPI Scheme. The sixth document is copy of settlement executed between Petitioner and Respondent
dated 05.12.2017. The seventh document is copy of letter dated 07.04.2016 from the Petitioner to Regional
Labour Commissioner for canteen. The documents filed from eighth to eleventh are copies of letters from
Petitioner to Respondents. The next and final document placed is dated 14.03.2017, a copy of RTI reply from
Respondent-3 to the Petitioner. But none of the document relates to suspension order of Mr. L.Singaravelu was
filed.
8.
In the reference made by the Central Government at point no.2, it is mentioned that all charges levelled
against office bearers of BEL-Tex Employees Union should be withdrawn in relation to D.A. freeze issue and
revoke the suspension of Mr. L.Singaravelu, Staff No.209556, the General Secretary of Bel-Tex Employees Union.
On careful perusal of point No.2, it appears that there are two grievances raised by the Union - i.e.,
i)
Withdrawn the charges regarding D.A freeze issue; &
ii)
Revoke suspension of Mr. L.Singaravelu.
In the claim petition, it is mentioned that Mr. L.Singaravelu Staff No. 209556, worked for the welfare of the
workmen and enquiry in his case was not completed even after completion of 1 ½ years and Mr.L.Singaravelu has
not acted against the welfare and development of respondent and adhered to the guidelines of the Respondent,
hence, the suspension order of Mr. L.Singaravelu needs to be set aside.
9.
In the affidavit filed by Mr. L.Singaravelu with regard to second demand/point, it is stated that he worked
for the welfare of the workmen and alleged that enquiry was not completed. However, nowhere in the affidavit Mr.
L.Singaravelu has mentioned that his suspension was a mala fide one. Further, he fails to produce a copy of
suspension order, though he filed 12 documents placed on the paper book as mentioned hereinabove. Although a
copy of suspension order is available in another case filed by Mr. L.Singaravelu u/s.33C(2) of the Act, but a
certified copy of suspension order is not available in the I.D. 30/2022 case. Therefore, it cannot be taken into
account, while deciding the industrial dispute case in hand.
10.
It is an admitted fact by both the parties that Mr. L.Singaravelu was suspended and the Respondent
mentioned that Mr. L.Singaravelu had committed breach of standing orders and created interference with the
process of the company affairs and violated the company policy and rules and failed to follow the original and
lawful instructions of the establishment. But, no proof was adduced in support of the allegations made by the
Respondent during the I.D. proceedings before this Tribunal. However, the burden of proof lies on Mr.
L.Singaravelu to prove /demonstrate before this Tribunal that suspension order was passed by Respondent with
mala fide intention. Even Mr.L.Singaravelu fails to have mentioned the word ―mala fide” either in the affidavit
submitted by him or in the charter of 12 demands raised by the Union. It was the duty of Mr. L.Singaravelu to
mention the mala fide intention of the Respondent, who put him under suspension, in order to establish any
personal bias or improper motive of Respondent, but, he has chosen not to do so.
10. Further, Mr. L.Singaravelu has argued that no reason of suspension was assigned by the Respondent while
placing him under suspension. This contention was not neither raised by him in the claim statement nor in the
affidavit. In the case of Ram Suman Hiralal Pandey Vs. Chancellor of Universities, Bhopal, the Hon‘ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court held that it is not always necessary to give reasons for suspension. It is distinct from the
charges of misconduct.
7802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11.
In light of the above discussion, I find Mr.L.Singaravelu fails to establish the mala fide intention of the
Respondent while he was put under suspension. The Association also fails to appear before this Tribunal to press
the remaining points/charter of demands except point No.2.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the BEL-Tex Employee‘s Union as well as against Mr. L.Singaravelu.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2291.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मजनेजर (टोल), ईगल डीप जत्रची बाय-पास टोलवेज़ इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, पुदुकोट्टई, मजनेजर (एचआर), ईगल
डीप जत्रची बाय-पास टोलवेज़ इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड पुदुकोट्टई, नेिनल हाईवे अथॉररटी ऑफ़ इंजडया, जतरुजचरापल्ली,
श्री साई एंटरप्राइजेज इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, भूथाकुडी टोल प्लाजा, पुदुकोट्टई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
श्री जी. थेन्नारासु, पुदुकोट्टई कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण-
सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई पंचाट(संदभड सं्या- 39/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज,प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/248-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Manager (Toll), Eagle Deep Trichy By-pass Tollways India Private Ltd, Pudukottai , The Manager (HR),
Eagle Deep Trichy By-pass Tollways India Private Ltd Pudukottai, National Highways Authority of India,
Trichirapalli, Sri Sai Enterprises India Pvt.Ltd., Boothakudi Toll Plaza, Pudukottai and Shri G.Thennarasu,
Pudukottai, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/248-IR(DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Date: 17-10-2025
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No.39/2018
BETWEEN
Shri G.Thennarasu,
S/o. Ganesan,
Toll Operation (under Termination)
Boothakudi Toll Plaza,
No.496, Ezhuvampatti,
Sooriyur, Perambur Post,
Viralimalai Taluk,
Pudukottai District-621 316
:
1st Party/ Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7803
AND
1.The Manager(Toll)
Eagle Deep Trichy By-pass Tollways India Private Ltd
Boothakudi Toll Plaza,
Rajanaickanpatti Post
Viralimalai Taluk,
Pudukottai District-621 316
2.The Manager (HR)
Eagle Deep Trichy By-pass Tollways India Private Ltd
Boothakudi Toll Plaza,
Rajanaickanpatti Post
Viralimalai Taluk,
Pudukottai District-621 316
3. National Highways Authority of India
6/44, 3rd Main Road, Ponnagar,
Trichirapalli-620 001.
4. Sri Sai Enterprises India Pvt.Ltd.
Boothakudi Toll Plaza,
Rajanaickanpatti Post
Viralimalai Taluk,
Pudukottai District-621 316.
.
:
2n Party/Respondents
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/ Petitioner
:
M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/ Respondents No.1 to 4:
None
The Petitioner has filed this petition u/s.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directly seeking relief of
reinstatement into service of the Respondent No.1, by setting aside the termination order dated 18.04.2017, with
consequential benefits.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent No.1 as Toll operator with
effect from 06.09.2012. It is stated in the claim statement that establishing toll plaza on the National Highway and
collection of toll is responsibility of Respondent No.1. The Petitioner has participated in the union activities and the
Respondent was in the habit of blaming and harassing the Petitioner for unfound errors and unsubtantiated charges.
The trade unions raised disputes before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai. The Respondents
were prejudiced against the Petitioner for such acts. While so, police arrested the Petitioner on 21.03.2017 without
assigning any reasons and he was released on bail on 17.04.2017 and carried out the duties as toll operator on
18.04.2017 & 19.04.2017 and singed attendance register on the dates. However, on 19.04.2017, the 1st Respondent
along with Accounts Officer informed that the Petitioner has been terminated from service and need not come to
work thereafter. At the insistence of the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent prepared termination order on 18.04.2017 and
he was called upon to the police station at Viralimalai and issued the said order through the hands of Sub-Inspector on
20.04.2017. The Petitioner was dismissed without observing principles of natural justice and was denied employment
since 20.04.2017. The FIR No.87 dated 16.03.2017 which contains 12 suspects was not supplied to the Petitioner and
one group of FIR which was served to the Petitioner did not contain his name. It is gross miscarriage of justice and
there was no application of principles of natural justice.
3.
The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer. The Respondent did not care to
attend the conciliation proceedings which is still pending. Therefore, it is prayed that impugned order is liable to be
set aside and the Petitioner is to be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits.
Witnesses Examined:
For the First Party Petitioner :
WW1 Shri G.Thennarasu
For the 2nd Party/Management :
NIL
7804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents Marked:
On the Petitioner‘s side:
Ex.No.
Date
Description
Ex.W1
18.04.2017
Copy of order of termination of Petitioner from service
Ex.W2
10.07.2017
Copy of representation by the Petitioner to the 1st Respondent
Ex.W3
16.03.2017
FIR
Ex,.W4
16.03.2017
FIR
Ex.W5
17.03.2017
FIR
Ex.W6
03.02.2018
2A petition filed before conciliation officer
Documents Marked:
On behalf of Respondent/Management : NIL
4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf the Respondents and no document has been filed on their behalf
in spite of service of notice. Therefore, the Respondents are set ex-parte and after hearing the learned counsel for the
Petitioner and perused records, an Award is being passed in the industrial dispute.
5.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner was arrested by the police, and
released on bail after two days, but the copy of FIR which was provided to the Petitioner did not contain the name of
the Petitioner. Ex.W3 marked is copy of the FIR and on perusal of the said document, it appears that details of
suspected accused names are given at para 7 of the FIR issued by Viralimalai police station, wherein, name of the
Petitioner is not found place amongst the 12 suspected/unknown accused persons. Therefore, the very basis of
alleged misconduct against the Petitioner does not exist in the present case. It appears that the Respondent has reacted
against the Petitioner on the false information. The Respondent never appeared before this Tribunal to controvert
the statements given by the Petitioner in his oral evidence and the affidavit that he was provided a copy of FIR in
which his name was not mentioned. On perusal of document marked as Ex.W3, this contention appears to be true.
Whereas, the document marked as Ex.W1, intimation regarding termination of service dated 18.04.2017, it is stated
that “you have left the job without any intimation and not reported for duty since from 17.03.2017 to 18.04.2017. On
enquiry we came to know that you have involved in criminal case of grave nature and remanded to judicial custody
thereby happened to be in jail for more than 48 hours. Therefore, now by this notice, you are informed that you have
been terminated by the company and your termination comes into immediate effect.‖ This intimation clearly shows
that after suspension, no enquiry officer was appointed and no opportunity was provided to the Petitioner. Therefore,
the order of termination issued by the Respondent is in violative of the principles of natural justice.
5.
The next question for determination that arises is whether the Petitioner is an employee of the National
Highways Authority of India, who is the principal employer.
6.
In the statement of claim, the Petitioner himself stated that he was appointed by the Respondent No.1 and
not by Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 has provided a contract to Respondent No.1 and 2. The employee
was appointed under the supervision of Respondent No.2. Thus, the Petitioner is not an employee of Respondent
No.3 i.e., National Highways Authority of India.
7.
The next point for determination that arises is what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?
8.
The Petitioner stated in his claim statement that after amendment, Respondent No.4 i.e., Sri Sai Enterprises
India Private Limited has taken over the charge of Toll Plaza. The Respondent No.4 is an independent contractor and
it was not employer of the Petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent No.4 has the liability to employ
the persons who were appointed by the prior contractor. Therefore, the Respondent No.4 is not liable to provide
service or job to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.1 and 2 are no more contractors of National Highways Authority
of India. Therefore, it is not possible to pass an order of reinstatement to the Petitioner in the job. But, since the
Petitioner was not provided neither any opportunity nor issued one month notice or one month salary in lieu of
notice as provided under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is entitled for compensation amount of
Rs.5.00 lakhs.
AWARD
In the given circumstances of the case, in my view, ends of justice would meet, if an order of pay compensation is
passed amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by the Respondent No.1 & 2 to the Petitioner, in lieu of
order of reinstatement into service. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.
Record be consigned to the record room.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7805
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2292.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार ग्जीक्यूरटव डायरेक्टर, मेससड भारत हेवी इलेजक्रकल्स जलजमटेड, रानीपेट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और
जनरल सेक्रेटरी, बीएपी एम्प्लॉइज़ यूजनयन, रानीपेट, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्रीय
सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई पंचाट(संदभड सं्या- 23/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया
गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज l
[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/264-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Executive Director, M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ranipet and The General Secretary, BAP
Employees Union, Ranipet, worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/264-IR(DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI
Date: 18-11-2025
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Industrial Dispute No. 23/2024
BETWEEN
The General Secretary,
BAP Employees Union,
C/o M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
BAP, Ranipet – 632 406.
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Executive Director,
M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.,
BAP, Ranipet – 632 406
:
II Party/ Respondents
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
: General Secretary
For the 2nd Party/Respondent
: M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co, Advocate
Award
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 8/88/ 2020/ 300032352/
B3/AJD/A1, dated 22.03.2024 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
―Whether the demand of Union BAP Employees Union, Ranipet againt the management of M/s Bharat
Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipet to withdraw the circular of BHEL BAP RANIPET, HRM/INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS Ref.No.BAP:HR:IR:CTX dated 15.10.2020 on the revision in rate of canteen products is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the union is entitled to?‖
7806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
On receipt of above reference from Central Government dated 22.03.2024, the dispute on reference was
registered as ID No.23/2024 and notices were issued to parties for their appearance.
3.
The ID case is called out. Both parties are present. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the General
Secretary of the BAP Employees Union, Ranipet filed a letter dated 07.11.2025 stating that the Union do not wish to
pursue the dispute before this Hon‘le Tribunal since the Union has settled the case directly with the Respondent
trough constructive dialogue. The General Secretary of BAP Employees Union, therefore, prays that this Hon‘ble
Tribunal may be please to dismiss the above Industrial Dispute being ID No.23/2024 as settled and closed.
4.
In view of the above reasons, Industrial Dispute filed by the Petitioner / Union is dismissed as withdrawn.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2293.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार सजचव, मानव संसाधन जवकास मंत्रालय, उच्च जिक्षा जवभाग, भारत सरकार, नई ददल्ली, अध्यक्ष, बोडड ऑफ गवनडसड,
नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ टेदिकल टीचसड, चेन्नई, सजचव/जनदेिक, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ टेदिकल टीचसड, रेसनग एंड ररसचड
चेन्नई सोसाइटी, (पूवड में टी टी टी आई सोसाइटी), चेन्नई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और महासजचव, देजिया पोधु
थोजज़ललार ओरुंजगनप्पू, चेंगलप्टू, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि औद्योजगक जववाद में केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- चेन्नई पंचाट (संदभड सं्या- 30/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज ।
[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/265-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court - Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
The Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of High Education, Govt. of India,
New Delhi, The Chairman,Board of Governors,National Institute of Technical Teachers, Chennai , The
Secretary / Director, National Institute of Technical Teachers, Training and Research Chennai Society,
(Formerly TTTI Society), Chennai and The General Secretary, Desiya Podhu Thozilalar Orunginappu,
worker.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/265– IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT
CHENNAI
ID No. 30/2024
Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER
Date: 18-11-2025
The General Secretary,
Desiya Podhu Thozilalar Orunginappu,
NO.305/2, Nethaji Nagar,
Chengalpattu
:
1st Party/Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7807
AND
1.
The Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of High Education,
Govt. of India, New Delhi – 110 001
: 2nd Party / 1st Respondent
2.
The Chairman,
Board of Governors,
National Institute of Technical Teachers
Training and Research Chennai Society,
(Formerly TTTI Society), Taramani,
Chennai – 600 113.
: 2nd Party / 2nd Respondent
3.
The Secretary / Director,
National Institute of Technical Teachers
Training and Research Chennai Society,
(Formerly TTTI Society), Taramani,
Chennai – 600 113.
: 2nd Party / 3rd Respondent
Appearance:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner :
None
For the Respondent No.1 :
None
For the Respondent No.2 & 3
:
M/s A.R. Sakthivel, Adv /
M/s L. Palanimuthu, Adv
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No. 8/9/2024/300040105/B4/ADJ/A1,
dated 20.05.2024 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
Whether Mr. M. Rajakumar ceases the status of workman after being compulsory retired? And whether the following
demands of Desiya Podhu Thozhilalar Orunginaippu is legal and justified?
a.
To revoke the office order of NITTTR dated 09.11.2020 in Estt/Damage rent/2021 and pay the entire
recovery amount with 18% interest?
b.
To revoke the major misconduct order dated 25.06.2021 by NITTTR in Admin/Sp.O/MRK/2021-22/102 and
pay entire recovery amount with 18% interest?
If not, to what relief Shri M. Rajakumar and the union is entitled to?
2.
On receipt of the above reference dated 20.05.2024 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was
registered as ID No. 30/2024 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to
01.08.2024. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further
adjournments to 02.07.2025, 25.08.2025 and 10.09.2025. The Petitioner did not turn up whereas the Respondents
filed Vakalat Nama. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated
20.05.2024 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite
parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in the interest of
justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 06.11.2025. The
Petitioner did not turn up nor was any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf present. The claim
statement was not furnished in any manner by the Petitioner. The R1 was not present, whereas R2 and R2 were
present. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file claim statement and
documents.
3.
In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which
would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.
7808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4.
In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with
the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government,
as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.
5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.
An Award is passed accordingly.
SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2294.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससड एक्मे इंडजस्ट्रयल जसक्योररटी सर्मवसेज, हजदराबाद, मेससड एजियन जसक्योररटी फोसड, जसकंदराबाद, क्षेत्रीय
जनदेिक, केंरीय भूजल बोडड, दजक्षणी क्षेत्र, बंदलागुडा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और टीएस कॉन्रजक्ट लेबर यूजनयन,
हजदराबाद, कामगार के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददि केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायालय हजदराबाद पंचाट
(संदभड सं्या- 51/2025) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज।
[सं. एल-42025/07/2025/212-आईआर-डीयू]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
M/s Acme Industrial Security Services, Hyderabad, M/s Asian Security Force, Secunderabad, The Regional
Director, Central Ground Water Board, Southern Region, Bandlaguda and TS contract labour union,
Hyderabad, workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2025/212– IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 25th day of August, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 51/2025
Between:
TS contract labour union,
TRT 141 Jawahar Nagar RTC
X Road, Hyderabad,
Telangana-500020.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
M/s Acme Industrial Security Services,
1-9-252/9/158, E.W.S.II-93,
MCH Colony, East Parsigutta,
Hyderabad-500020.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7809
2.
M/s Asian Security Force,
6-1-296,1st Floor Near Saibaba Temple,
Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad-500025.
3.
The Regional Director,
Central Ground Water Board,
Southern Region, GSI post,
Bandlaguda-500068.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 8/2/2025-B1 dated 29.01.2025 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s Central Ground water Board & 2 others , and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Central Ground water Board in terminating the services of
worker in the establishment of Central Ground Water Board is justified? If not, what relief Smt. K.
Shivamani is entitled to?‖
―Whether the submission of Central Ground Water Board as CGVB has right as a buyer to ask the contractor/service
provider to replace/change them with suitable personnel for providing better services to CGWB by rotating the
existing personnel with new workers as per the terms and conditions laid down in GeM contract is justified? If not,
what relief Smt. K. Shivamani is entitled to?‖
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 26/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice
and sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-
claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 25th day of
August, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for
the Petitioner Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
NIL
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2295.—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 (a26/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-04]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
7810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 26/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-04]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 26/2025
Between:
Shri Jagadam Raja Babu,
Messenger, 9-11-17,
Chidalapora Gandhinagar Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh-533001.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Kakinada Main Branch District,
Andhra Pradesh-533002.
2.
Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, LHO,
Amaravati, Gunfoundary,
Hyderabad-500001.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/23/2024-B1 dated 30.12.2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s State Bank of India , and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Jagadam
Raja Babu is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 26/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice and
sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-
claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 1st day of
July, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7811
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2296.—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 (a27/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-05]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 27/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-05]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 27/2025
Between:
Shri D Venkateswarlu,
Attender, D.No. 1-5B, SC
Colony, Karlapudi, Guntur,
AP-522016.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. Branch Manager, State Bank
Of India, Mandadam, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh-522503.
7812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. Assistant General manager,
State Bank of India, LHO,
Amaravati, Gunfoundry,
Hyderabad-500001.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/24/2024-B1 dated 30.12.2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 27/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice and
sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement
‗no-claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of
July, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR,Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2297.—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 (a28/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-06]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-06]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7813
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 28/2025
Between:
Shri Nandam Venkata Ramlingeswara Rao,
Messenger, 41-20/5-50, Kalpana Print
Bazar, Krishnalanka, District: NTR,
AP-520013.
..….Petitioner
AND
1.
Branch Manager, State Bank
Of India, Governorpet Branch,
NTR, AP-520002.
2.
Assistant General manager,
State Bank of India, LHO,
Amaravati, Gunfoundry,
Hyderabad-500001.
…..Respondent
Appearances
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/25/2024-B1 dated 30.12.2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Nandam
Venkata Ramlingeswara Rao is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 28/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice
and sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-
claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the
23rd day of July, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
7814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2298.—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 (a29/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-07]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-07]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29/2025
Between:
Shri Marrapu Rama Mohana Rao,
Attender, H.No.3-57, Egireddy
Vari Street, Bhimadole Mandal,
Gundugolanu, West Godavari,
AP-534427.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. Branch Manager, State Bank
Of India, Labbipeta, Vijayawada,
NTR, AP-520007.
2. Assistant General manager,
State Bank of India, LHO,
Amaravati, Gunfoundry,
Hyderabad-500001.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/26/2024-B1 dated 30.12.2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7815
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of
Shri Shri Marrapu Rama Mohana Rao,is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 29/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice
and sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-
claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of
July, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2299.—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 (a30/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-08]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 30/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-08]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 30/2025
Between:
Shri Komaravathina Vijaya Vara Prasad,
Messenger, 43-5-22, Block No.96,
Ajith Singh Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR,
Andhra Pradesh-520015.
..….Petitioner
7816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
1. Branch Manager, State Bank
Of India, Governorpet Branch,
NTR, AP-520002.
2. Assistant General manager,
State Bank of India, LHO,
Amaravati, Gunfoundry,
Hyderabad-500001.
…..Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/27/2024-B1 dated 30.12.2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Shri
Komaravathina Vijaya Vara Prasad,is legal and justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 30/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice and
sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-
claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of
July, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2300.—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 (a31/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर(बी-I)-09]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7817
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of
India and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-09]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 23rd day of July, 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2025
Between:
Shri ILA Ramakothaiah, Messenger,
3-60-2, Aaminapuram, Krishna, NTR,
Andhra Pradesh-521250.
..….Petitioner
AND
1. Branch Manager, State Bank
Of India, Kankipadu, NTR,
AP-521151.
2. Assistant General manager,
State Bank of India, LHO,
Amaravati, Gunfoundry,
Hyderabad-500001.
….. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 7/28/2024-B1 dated 30.12.2024 referred the
following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s State Bank of India and their workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Shri ILA
Ramakothaiah, Messenger is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 31/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice and
sufficient opportunity didn‘t filed any claim statement and documents. Hence, In absence of claim statement ‗no-
claim‘ Award is passed. Transmit.
Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of
July, 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
7818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2301.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] आसनसोल
ds iapkV(
-29/2021
) dks
izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/59/2021-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/सलक अजधकारी
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 29/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/01/2026.
[No. L-22012/59/2021– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 29 OF 2021
PARTIES:
Habu Bouri
Vs
Management of 3 &4 Incline, Jhanjra Project Colliery, Jhanjra Area , ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Shabe Alam, union representative
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
12/11/2025
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7819
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/59/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 10/12/2021 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project Colliery, Jhanjra Area of Eastern Coalfields
Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the Management of Jhanjra Project Colliery, Jhanjra Area of M/s. E.C.Ltd in
dismissing Sri Habu Bouri Ex- Cat-I Mazdoor vide letter No. GM/JNR/PERS/2016/1716 dated 29-03-2016 is
fair, legal and justified under principles of Natural Justice? If not, what relief Sri Habu Bouri is entitled to?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/59/2021-IR(CM-II) dated 10/12/2021 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 29 of 2021 was registered on
14.12.2021/01.07.2022 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing
them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Habu Bouri, the dismissed workman filed written statement on 22/05/2023 through Mr. Bipul Banerjee, ld.
advocate for the union. Fact of the case as disclosed in the written statement of Habu Bouri is that he was a permanent
employee of ECL and was posted at 3 & 4 Incline, Jhanjra Project Colliery as General Mazdoor, Cat-I having U. Man
No. 854115. Due to illness workman absented his duty from 15/11/2013 and the management of ECL issued a charge
sheet against him, bearing No. AGT/JNR/3&4/P/CS/13/898 dated 02/12/2013 under clause 26.29 of the Certified
Standing Orders of the company. According to the workman charge sheet was never served upon the workman for
which he could not submit his reply to the allegation of unauthorized absence. Management conducted a domestic
enquiry without serving Notice of enquiry and without granting reasonable opportunity. Principles of Natural Justice
was violated by the Enquiry Officer who upon concluding the enquiry held that the charge levelled was established
beyond doubt. General Manager, Jhanjra Area, ECL, the Disciplinary Authority on considering the perverse enquiry
report dismissed the workman from service by letter dated 29/03/2016 and no second show cause Notice was served
upon the charged employee for his explanation to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It is contended that dismissal of
the workman from service is illegal and is an outcome of colourable exercise of power. Dismissed workman further
contended that Disciplinary Authority has no right to impose a punishment of dismissal based upon the perverse
report of the Enquiry Officer as such Impugned Order of dismissal is liable to be set aside and the workman should be
reinstated in service with payment of full back wages.
3.
Management filed written statement on 13/01/2023. Converse case of the management which unfolds from
the written statement is that Habu Bouri was posted as General Mazdoor, Cat-I at Jhanjra Project Colliery under ECL.
He absented his duty from 15/11/2013 in an unauthorized manner without any information or prior permission of the
management. A Charge sheet was issued against Habu Bouri on 02/12/2013 under clause 26.29 of the Certified
Standing Orders for his unauthorized absence from duty beyond ten days without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause.
Management contended that the workman did not reply to the charge sheet and a domestic enquiry was held against
him. Several Notice of Enquiry were issued by the management which were sent at the home address of Habu Bouri
recorded in B-Form register of the company. Fifth Notice of Enquiry was also published in a local Hindi Newspaper
which was circulated around the native village of the workman. Despite such publication, workman did not participate
nor did he send any information to the office. Management finally held an ex-parte enquiry against the workman.
Enquiry Officer found the workman guilty of the charge levelled against him for his habitual and unauthorized
absence. Management specifically stated in the written statement that in the preceding years workman attended duty
only for twenty one days in the year 2011, thirty six days in the year 2012 and forty four days in the year 2013. After
the workman was found guilty of charge on both counts, a second show cause Notice bearing No.
GM/JNR/PERS/2016/1497 dated 20/02/2016 was issued under the registered post with Acknowledge due along with
copy of enquiry proceeding and findings of the Enquiry Officer, inviting his comments and explanation, if any.
Management found no extenuating circumstance in favour of Habu Bouri to absolve him from the misconduct.
Disciplinary Authority thereafter dismissed him by issuing Order No. GM/JNR/PERS/2016/1716 dated 29/03/2016
and the same was sent to his home address under registered post. Management asserted that the principle of Natural
Justice was followed at all stages and reasonable opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case. It is urged
that if the enquiry is found to be unfair for any reason, then the management should be given an opportunity to
substantiate the charge by independent proof.
4.
Central issue for consideration is whether dismissal of Habu Bouri from service by the management of ECL
by order dated 29/03/2016 is fair, legal and consistent with the
principle of Natural Justice? If not, what relief the dismissed workman is entitled to?
5.
Habu Bouri filed an affidavit-in-chief and has examined himself as Workman Witness -I. It is stated in the
affidavit that he was absent from duty from 15/11/2013 due to illness and he was charge sheeted on 02/12/2013 under
7820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
clause 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. According to his statement in the affidavit the charge
sheet was never served upon him for which he was unable to reply to the charge. Management of ECL conducted a
domestic enquiry in respect of allegation made in the charge sheet and without serving any copy of Notice of Enquiry
and without providing opportunity to the workman, the Enquiry Officer in violation of the principle of Natural Justice
concluded the enquiry and found the workman guilty of charge. Workman further stated that he was removed from
service without being served with any second show cause Notice. Workman claimed his reinstatement in service by
setting aside the illegal order of dismissal and payment of back wages for the period he remained idle. Workman did
not produce any document in support of his illness nor did he produce any treatment papers from any doctor or
hospital during the period of his absence. In course of cross-examination, workman admitted that he was a habitual
absentee from duty and he attended duty only for twenty one days in the year 2011 and thirty six days in the year
2012. Workman denied that charge sheet was issued and served upon him at his home address. He further denied any
publication of Notice of Enquiry in ‗Dainik Jagran‘, a Hindi Newspaper. Workman further denied that he submitted
reply against second show cause Notice. Regarding mercy petition, workman at first deposed that he did not submit
any application as mercy petition after his dismissal but later admitted his signature on mercy petition dated
20/04/2016 which is marked as Exhibit M-1.
6.
Mr. Alaric Oneal Lyndem has been examined as Management Witness -I. He filed an affidavit-in-chief
where he stated that management issued a charge sheet against Habu Bouri under clause 26.23 for habitual absence
from duty without sufficient cause and under clause 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders for absence from duty
beyond ten days without sanctioned leave. It is further stated that the workman did not submit reply to the charge
sheet and the management decided to hold enquiry. Seven Notice of Enquiry were issued against Habu Bouri but he
did not appear to participate. Fifth Notice of Enquiry was also published in a local newspaper circulated near his
native place. As the workman did not participate, an ex-parte enquiry was held in which charges were established
before the Enquiry Officer. After enquiry proceeding was held, a second show cause Notice bearing No.
GM/JNR/PERS/2016/1497 dated 20/02/2016 was issued to Habu Bouri under registered post at his home address
along with copies of enquiry proceeding and finding for his explanation, if any. It is stated that Habu Bouri replied the
second show cause Notice on 17/03/2016. He could not justify his absence and could not make out any extenuating
circumstance in respect of charges established. According to the management, on previous occasions warnings were
issued and there was stoppage of payment of increments to Habu Bouri for his habitual absence. Management found
no other alternatives and dismissed the workman by issuing order dated 29/03/2016 which was communicated to him.
Management witness further stated that principle of Natural Justice was followed at all stages and opportunity was
given to the workman to defend himself. It is also stated that the punishment awarded is totally justified and in no way
disproportionate to the nature of misconduct committed by him.
In support of the management‘s case, following documents have been produced before the Tribunal:
(i)
Copy of charge sheet dated 02/12/2013 issued against the workman is produced as Exhibit M-2.
(ii)
Copy of Notice of Enquiry issued to Habu Bouri dated 05/02/2014, 19/03/2014, 03/05/2014, 07/06/2014,
17/07/2014, 01/09/2014 and 07/01/2015 are collective produced as Exhibit M-3.
(iii)
Copy of letter dated 01/02.12.2014 issued by the Chief Manager (P) informing the Enquiry Officer that
Notice had been published in ―Dainik Jagran‖, Dhanbad on 05/08/2014 is produced as Exhibit M-4.
(iv)
Xerox copy of Notice published in Dainik Jagran is produced as Exhibit M-4/1.
(v)
Copy of enquiry proceeding in ten pages is collectively produced as Exhibit M-5.
(vi)
Copy of Enquiry report in three pages is collectively produced as Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of second show cause Notice dated 15/20.02.2016 issued by the General Manager, Jhanjra Area in two
pages is collectively produced as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Copy of reply dated 17/03/2016 submitted by the workman against the second show cause Notice is
produced as Exhibit M-8.
(ix)
Copy of office order dated 22/29.03.2016 issued by the General Manager, Jhanjra Area in two pages
dismissing the workman from service is collectively produced as Exhibit M-9.
(x)
Copy of order dated 28/29.07.2016 issued by the Director (P) in two pages by which appeal preferred by the
dismissed workman was dismissed is collectively produced as Exhibit M-10.
It transpires from the cross-examination of the Management Witness that he was unable to produce
documents to show that charge sheet was served upon Habu Bouri. No personal messenger was sent to the address of
Habu Bouri to deliver the charge sheet. He also stated that management has not charged Habu Bouri for habitual
absence. Witness
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7821
has only submitted a paper clip of ‗Dainik Jagran‘ (Exhibit M-4/1) and did not produce copy of publication.
Management Witness, however denied that management did not observe the principle of Natural Justice at the time of
holding enquiry.
7.
Mr. Shabe Alam, authorized representative of the union advanced his argument that the workman did not
willfully abandon his duty but due to family problems and due to limited understanding of official procedures he
could not communicate with the colliery management and was misconstrued as habitual absentee which is not a
misconduct. It is further argued that the management did not serve charge sheet and Notice of enquiry upon the
workman except the second show cause Notice dated 20/02/2016. According to the union, applicant was unaware of
the departmental enquiry initiated by the management and did not receive any opportunity to defend himself. Further
case of Mr. Alam is that the reply to the second show cause Notice was not drafted by the workman and he was made
to put signature on a pre-drafted reply without fully understanding its content. Mr. Shabe Alam argued that without
proper compliance of the principles of Natural Justice and without following the due procedures of law, dismissal of
the workman is invalid and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service maintaining continuity of service and
all consequential benefits. It is strenuously argued that the management violated the procedural norms by non-service
of charge sheet and Notice of enquiry. Therefore, dismissal from service for absenteeism is a disproportionate
punishment. It is urged that order of dismissal dated 29/03/2016 passed by Jhanjra Project Colliery is liable to be set
aside and the workman should be reinstated in service with payment of back wages and consequential benefits,
maintaining continuity of service.
8.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management argued that the charged employee was a habitual
absentee and he was on unauthorized leave for more than ten days for which a charge sheet was issued against him
under clauses 26.23 and 26.29 of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. Charge sheet was issued at his home
address but he did not reply. Management held enquiry providing ample opportunity to the workman but he did not
appear to participate. Workman did not inform the management regarding reasons of his absence and did not produce
any document in support of his absence. It is argued that long absence without providing any information to the
management is a gross misconduct and amounts to desertion of employment. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate argued
that the Enquiry Officer made every attempt and provided every opportunity to the workman to participate in the
proceeding but he was fully evasive. Notice of enquiry published in the Newspaper ―Dainik Jagran‖ on 05/08/2014
discloses about issuance of charge sheet on 02/12/2013. Management having no alternative had to proceed ex-parte. It
is submitted that the principle of Natural Justice was followed by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
at every stage. Ld. Advocate for the management referred the charge sheet which is marked as Exhibit M-2 and
argued that charges were levelled on two counts i.e. habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause under clause
26.23 and absence from duty beyond ten days without sanctioned leave under clause 26.29 of Certified Standing
Orders of the company. Second show cause Notice was issued by the General Manager, Jhanjra Area and it was sent
to the workman at his home address at Village- Chaskunia, PO- Berdidia, PS- Nirsa, Dist- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) along
with a copy of Enquiry proceeding (Exhibit M-5) and Enquiry report (Exhibit M-6) inviting his reply. Ld. Advocate
for the management referring to the employee‘s reply against the second show cause Notice on 17/03/2016 argued
that the workman admitted his long unauthorized absence from duty on the ground of illness but failed to produce
documents. It is argued that charge sheet was issued in the year 2013 but the workman did not make himself available
to submit reply nor did he participate in the enquiry for more than two years. Therefore, there is no extenuating
circumstance for absolving the employee of the charges which are admitted and established. Ld. Advocate for the
management contended that the Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
9.
I have considered contents of the written statement of both parties, evidence adduced by the workman
witness and the management witness, documents produced by the management and arguments advanced by both
parties. From the materials on record, long absence of the charged employee has become conspicuous. It is true that
management did not produce documents in support of service of charge sheet and Notice of Enquiry before holding
domestic enquiry. On a perusal of the enquiry proceeding (Exhibit M-5) it transpires that the Enquiry Officer initiated
enquiry proceeding on 05/03/2014 but due to absence of workman granted several adjournments until a Notice of
Enquiry dated 17/07/2014 was published in a Hindi Newspaper ―Dainik Jagran‖ which is a Dhanbad based
publication. The Notice discloses about the charge sheet issued. Workman, however, did not care to participate in the
enquiry even after paper publication. Conduct of the workman is evident from the fact that after issuance of charge
sheet and admitted absence from duty from 15/11/2013, he did not turn up before the management of the employer
company for more than two years. Management Representative have adduced evidence before the Enquiry Officer to
prove the charge levelled against the workman. On previous occasions workman appears to have absented from his
duty and his attendance during the years 2011 to 2013 was extremely poor. After enquiry, an enquiry report was
submitted on 21/01/2015 (Exhibit M-6). Disciplinary Authority issued a second show cause Notice to the workman
vividly stating his misconduct and findings of the Enquiry Officer. Second show cause Notice has been produced as
Exhibit M-7. Workman in his examination denied receiving second show cause Notice but the union representative in
his written argument admitted receipt of the same. It appears from the reply dated 17/03/2016 to the second show
cause Notice (Exhibit M-8) that Habu Bouri admitted his long absence on the ground of ―heavy illness‖. However,
workman did not produce a single document in support of his illness which prevented him from attending his duty for
such a long period. Disciplinary Authority did not find the reply satisfactory and issued an order of dismissal
7822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dated 22/29.03.2016 (Exhibit M-9). From the sequence of events and the procedure undertaken by the management in
holding enquiry, I find that the management has provided reasonable opportunity to the workman to participate in the
enquiry to defend his case. Workman in a nonchalant manner ignored every move of the management and did not take
part in the proceeding. Being an employee of the company, duty is cast upon the workman to keep the management
informed about all circumstances related to his attending duty or reasons of his absence from duty. Responsibility to
inform the workman is not a one-sided requirement. In a case of Nav Bharat Industries Vs. Presiding Officer and
another [2018 LLR 439], Hon‘ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that if a workman remained absent
unauthorizedly for a long time, even due to his illness without informing the management about it, termination of his
service by invoking conditions as stipulated in the Certified Standing Orders, is not illegal. It was further held that
when the workman does not inform the management about his illness, remaining absent for a long time, presumption
drawn by the management that workman has abandoned his job of his own is justified. Borrowing wisdom from the
settled position of law, I am inclined to hold that dismissal of the workman by the management due to his long
unauthorized and habitual absence is fully justified and there is no extenuating circumstance to extend any relief to
the workman. Hence, I hold that there is no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal of the workman. Therefore,
the workman is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement or back wages.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. I find no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal passed
against the workman dismissing him from service. He is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement or back wages.
Management is directed to disburse all legal dues of the dismissed workman due to his past service, if not paid earlier.
Let an Award be drawn up in the light of my above discussion. Let copies of Award be communicated to the Ministry
for information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2302.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] आसनसोलds iapkV(संदभड-10/2023
) dks izdkf”kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/07/2023-आईआर-(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/सलक अजधकारी
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 10/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/01/2026.
[No. L-22012/07/2023– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 10 OF 2023
PARTIES:
Manoj Hari
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7823
Vs
Management of Khas Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal.
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
17/10/2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order
No. L-22012/07/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 01/02/2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the
employer, that is the Management of Khas Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of M/s. E.C.Ltd. in dismissal
from service to Sri Manoj Hadi, Ex-General Mazdoor, U.Man No. 196919 vide order No, ECL/KA/ APM/C-
6/2018/20/2510 dated 13/03/2018 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is
entitled to and what directions are necessary to the management in this respect?”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22012/07/2023-IR(CM-II) dated 01/02/2023 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 10 of 2023 was registered on
01/02/2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear
and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.
2.
Koyala Mazdoor Congress, representative union filed written statement on 05/04/2023 stating therein that
Manoj Hari, General Mazdoor, U. Man No. 196919 was a permanent employee of ECL at Khas Kajora Colliery. Due
to illness, he could not attend his duty from 14/07/2016. After recovery from illness when he reported for duty, he
submitted treatment papers but the management did not allow him to join. A charge sheet bearing No. KKC/P&IR/C-
6/CS/17/504 dated 17/04/2017 was issued against him over the charges of unauthorized absence from duty for more
than ten days and for his habitual absence. Manoj Hari replied to the charge sheet, stating that he was undergoing
medical treatment at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol and in support of his claim, he submitted treatment papers.
Management initiated a domestic enquiry and the workman participated in the enquiry proceeding. At the time of
enquiry, he once again replied the fact that due to illness, he was unable to attend duty and that he had no intention to
remain away from duty. Treatment papers were produced before the Enquiry Officer to show that remaining absent
from duty was beyond his control on account of his illness. Enquiry Officer on concluding enquiry submitted his
report to the management of the colliery. A second show cause Notice was issued to which the workman replied
requesting the management to allow him to join duty. On recommendation of the Agent of the Colliery, General
Mazdoor of the Area issued an order of dismissal dated 13/03/2018 dismissing the workman from service of the
company.
3.
After receiving order of dismissal, Manoj Hari, the dismissed workman submitted a mercy appeal before the
Director (Pers), ECL Headquarters under the provision of Certified Standing Orders of the company and also in
accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/05/2007 which was agreed upon between the management
and workmen in presence of RLC (C), Asansol. Workman submitted two mercy appeals dated 20/04/2018 and
25/09/2018 praying for his reinstatement in service. Management of ECL did not reply to the Mercy Appeals. This
incident was followed by Covid pandemic. It is submitted by the union that workman was absent from duty for about
nine months from 14/07/2016 to 17/04/2017 and for such absence due to illness, Management should not have
awarded the highest punishment of dismissal. It is contended that nature of punishment is disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct and the union prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the workman, along
with payment of back wages and consequential benefits.
4.
Management contested the case by filing written statement on 05/04/2023. According to the management,
Manoj Hari, the dismissed workman was posted as a General Mazdoor and his date of birth is 24/10/1983. He was
appointed in service of ECL on 31/03/2011 at Khas Kajora Colliery. Workman was a habitual absentee and he was
reprimanded on several occasions. Workman was absent from duty from 14/07/2016 and continued his unauthorized
absence without providing information to the appropriate authority. Management of ECL issued charge sheet dated
17/04/2017 under clauses 26.23 and 26.29 of Certified Standing Orders applicable to Coal Industries for habitual late
7824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
attendance or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause and absence from duty for more than ten days
without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause respectively. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the workman.
Three Notice of enquiry were served upon the workman but he did not turn up after first two Notices and finally
workman participated in the enquiry held on 26/09/2017. Enquiry Officer followed the principle of Natural Justice
and provided opportunity to the charged employee to defend himself. In course of enquiry, the charge of unauthorized
absence was proved against the workman beyond doubt. A second show cause Notice was issued on 31/10/2017 and
the charged employee submitted his reply to it but the same was not found satisfactory. On the basis of findings of
Enquiry Officer, the General Manager, Kajora Area dismissed the workman from service of the company by issuing a
letter No. ECL/KA/APM/C-6/2018/10/2510 dated 13/03/2018. Further case of the management is that workman was
a habitual absentee and his past record shows that he attended duty for seventy two days in the year 2013, eighty three
days in the year 2014, fifty five days in the year 2015 and forty four days in the year 2016 (upto 13/07/2016). It is
urged by the management that unauthorized absence from duty is a serious misconduct and it hampers work of the
employer and affects the production process. Workman was given ample opportunity to rectify himself but he did not
amend his nature. Management relied upon the settled position of law that habitual absence means gross violation of
discipline and habitual absence is a factor establishing lack of interest of the employee in work. According to the
management workman must not conduct his duty in this negligent manner and perform work responsibly not only for
personal excellence but also for collective good of the organization which he serves. Management urged that its action
in dismissing the workman is totally lawful, proper and the delinquent is not entitled to any relief.
5.
Moot point for consideration in the reference is whether the action of the management in dismissing Manoj
Hari, General Mazdoor from service is proper, legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?
6.
Manoj Hari filed his affidavit-in-chief and examined himself as Workman Witness-I. He produced the
following documents in support of his case:
(i)
copy of charge sheet issued to the workman is marked as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
copy of reply submitted by the workman against the charge sheet is marked as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
copy of medical documents in support of illness issued from the Asansol District Hospital is marked as
Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
copy of OPD treatment card is marked as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
copy of written explanation submitted against the second show cause Notice in two pages is collectively
marked as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
copy of letter issued to the workman by the General Manager, Kajora Area, terminating him from service
w.e.f. 08/03/2018 is marked as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
copy of mercy appeals submitted by the workman on 20/04/2018 and 25/09/2018 for his reinstatement in
service are marked as Exhibits W-7 and W-8 respectively.
During cross-examination workman witness stated that he used to attend duty from Andal and did not get
medical treatment from the company hospital during his long absence of nine months. It transpires from the testimony
of WW-I that he was admitted to Asansol District Hospital and produced documents. Workman stated that he reported
for duty one month after he was discharged from the hospital and informed the reason of absence. Workman admitted
that he was absent from duty from 14/07/2016 to 14/04/2017. He also admitted that prior to issuance of charge sheet,
he could not attend duty on regular basis. In reply to the suggestion he was not suffering from illness, witness denied
the same. He further deposed that he did not intentionally remain away from his place of work and stated that he was
not dismissed from service on proper ground and for proper reasons. Averments made by the workman that he
submitted two mercy petitions dated 20/04/2018 and 25/09/2018 for allowing him to join duty as per Memorandum of
Settlement dated 22/05/2007 has not been refuted by the Management.
7.
In the instant case management examined Mr. Proloy Dasgupta as Management Witness-I. He filed an
affidavit-in-chief where he alleged that the workman was a habitual absentee and was previously reprimanded on
several occasions for his habitual absence. MW-I further deposed that the workman participated in the enquiry after
third Notice of
Enquiry and was given fully opportunity to defend himself. It is gathered from the testimony of MW-I that charge of
unauthorized absence was proved beyond doubt and a second show cause Notice was issued to him on 31/10/2017. It
appears from the admission that charged employee submitted reply to the second show cause Notice and the
management finally dismissed the workman. In course of examination, witness produced the following documents:
(i)
Copy of charge sheet dated 17/04/2017 issued against the workman is marked as Exhibit M-1
(ii)
Copy of reply to the charge sheet submitted by the workman along with medical certificates from Asansol
District Hospital in four pages is collectively marked as Exhibit M-2.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7825
(iii)
Copy of letter of appointment of the Enquiry Officer is marked as Exhibit M-3.
(iv)
Copy of first Notice of Enquiry dated 26/06/2017 is marked as Exhibit M-4 and copy of postal receipt is
marked as Exhibit M-4/1.
(v)
Copy of second Notice of Enquiry dated 31/07/2017 is marked as Exhibit M-5 and copy of postal receipt is
marked as Exhibit M-5/1.
(vi)
Copy of third Notice of Enquiry dated 12/09/2017 which was received by the workman is marked as
Exhibit M-6.
(vii)
Copy of enquiry proceeding dated 26/09/2017 in two pages is collectively marked as Exhibit M-7.
(viii)
Copy of enquiry report is marked as Exhibit M-8.
(ix)
Copy of second show cause Notice served upon the workman is marked as Exhibit M-9.
(x)
Copy of reply submitted by the workman against the second show cause Notice in two pages is collectively
marked as Exhibit M-10.
(xi)
Copy of letter of dismissal issued by the General Manager, Kajora Area dated 13/03/2018 is marked as
Exhibit M-11.
In cross-examination, Management Witness admitted that medical treatment papers were submitted by the
workman in course of enquiry. In respect of earlier enquiries, no order of punishment was filed. He also admitted that
mercy appeal submitted by the dismissed workman was not considered. Management Witness denied that punishment
imposed upon the workman was disproportionate to the nature of his misconduct.
8.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative arguing the case on behalf of the dismissed workman submitted that
the workman participated in the enquiry proceeding and produced documents in support of his illness which have
been marked as Exhibit W-3, Exhibit W-4 and Exhibit M-2 which proved beyond doubt that the workman was
suffering from illness during the period of his absence for a period of nine months. It is further argued that though the
charge was levelled against the employee for his unauthorized absence as well as habitual absence, there is no finding
in respect of the charge of habitual absence. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence adduced
before him held that the charged employee was guilty for unauthorized absence. According to the union representative
a second show cause Notice was issued to the charged workman and he submitted reply addressed to the Agent which
has been marked as Exhibit W-5. In reply to the second show cause Notice the workman stated that he was suffering
from serious illness from 14/07/2016 to 17/04/2017. He also denied that he was a habitual absentee and late-comer.
Mr. Kumar argued that though charge of habitual absence was not proved and allegation in the second show cause
Notice was also denied in reply which has been produced as Exhibit W-5/Exhibit M-10, the General Manager issued
order of dismissal presuming that the charge of habitual absence has been proved against the workman beyond doubt.
It is argued that though the charge of habitual absence was not proved and there is no finding of the Enquiry Officer
over such charge, the appropriate authority without consideration of such fact and findings has misplaced his decision
by presuming that both charges were proved. Regarding charge of unauthorized absence, Mr. Kumar argued that it is
true that the workman did not inform the management about his absence for nine months but there are sufficient
reasons for his absence from duty as he was suffering from illness and produced medical documents in support of the
same. Union representative contended that the workman was thirty two years of age at the time of his dismissal from
service and according to the Memorandum of Settlement date 22/05/2007 management of ECL accepted that if period
of absence was within nine months and the workman was within the age of limit of forty five years, the management
would consider the mercy appeal praying for reinstatement in service. In the instant case after dismissal, the workman
submitted two mercy petitions praying for reinstatement in service but the management admittedly did not consider
the same till date. Union representative on such ground prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal and
reinstatement of the workman in the service of the company.
9.
Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that the workman did not inform the
management about his suffering from illness and remained absent without any authorization of leave. Referring to the
reply submitted by the workman in response to charge sheet (Exhibit W-2/Exhibit M-2), ld. Advocate submitted that
the workman admitted guilt of his unauthorized absence. A fair departmental enquiry was held in which the workman
participated and was found guilty over the charge of unauthorized absence for more than ten days. It is argued that the
management lost confidence on the workman due to his indisciplined nature, which adversely affected the interest of
the management. Ld. Advocate urged that on earlier occasion the workman habitually remained absent from the year
2013 to 2016 (upto 13/07/2016) for which he was reprimanded but the workman did not rectify himself. It is argued
that after considering materials placed before the Disciplinary Authority, final decision was taken for dismissal of the
workman from service. It is asserted that the punishment imposed against the workman is proper and proportionate to
the nature of misconduct. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the
Industrial Dispute is liable to be dismissed.
7826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10.
I have considered the rival arguments of the union as well as of the management and also assessed the
evidence on record in the light of fact and circumstances of the case. Admittedly Manoj Hari, a permanent employee
of ECL who was appointed in service on 31/03/2011 remained absent from duty without authorization continuously
for nine months from 14/07/2016 to 17/04/2017. Management of ECL issued charge sheet against him disclosing the
charge under clause 26.29 and 26.23 of the Certified Standing Orders for unauthorized absence from duty for more
than ten days without sufficient cause and habitual absence from duty respectively. After issuance of charge sheet the
workman submitted reply (Exhibit W-2/Exhibit M-2) where he stated that he was under medical treatment at Asansol
District Hospital and enclosed treatment papers in the name of Manoj Hari. Management was not satisfied with the
reply and initiated a domestic enquiry against him. It may be derived from evidence of the management that the
workman was undergoing medical treatment at Asansol District Hospital on 14/07/2016 as well as on 12/12/2016.
Medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer (Exhibit M-2) reveals that Manoj Hari was receiving medical
treatment at Asansol District Hospital from 14/07/2016 as OPD patient with various ailments. In my considered view
the Enquiry Officer failed to consider the medical papers as there was sufficient cause for absence of workman during
the said period. Medical documents have not been challenged in the course of evidence before the Enquiry Officer.
Therefore, no shadow of doubt is cast over the union‘s claim that the workman was suffering from illness. It is
apparent from evidence on record that the workman was prevented from attending duty during the period of his
absence due to his illness, which was beyond his control. In the instant case, Enquiry Officer did not hold the charged
employee guilty over the charge of habitual absence. In the second show cause Notice (Exhibit M-9) Agent, Khas
Kajora Colliery directed the charged employee to respond to the charge of habitual absence proved against the
workman during the year 2013-2016 despite the fact that the Enquiry Officer did not arrive at any finding on the
charge of habitual absence. In the enquiry report (Exhibit M-8), Enquiry Officer held that ―in view of the above I
found that the charges of unauthorized absence levelled against Sri Manoj Hari, UG General Mazdoor, U. M. No.
196919 of Khas Kajora Colliery as per Certified Standing Order are proved beyond doubt. I submit my enquiry report
to the Colliery Manager, Khas Kajora Colliery.‖ In the finding of Enquiry Officer, there is no reference to the charge
of habitual absence therefore, in order to find the charged employee guilty over the charge of habitual absence,
Disciplinary Authority was required to issue a Notice to show cause to the charged employee informing him that he
differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer on such point and on the basis of evidence on record, he held a
different view that the charged employee was found guilty of habitual absence also. In absence of such procedure
adopted, the Disciplinary Authority could not have found Manoj Hari guilty of the second charge. I find from the
record that the workman was suffering from illness at the relevant time but the finding of the Enquiry Officer was
perverse and is not consistent with the evidence on record when he found the workman guilty on the charge of
unauthorized absence though there was sufficient ground for absence of the workman from duty. The workman after
his dismissal submitted two mercy petitions dated 20/04/2018 and 25/09/2018 for his reinstatement in service.
Though the applications were made on the basis of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/05/2007 and the workman
fulfilled pre-conditions that the period of absence should be less than nine months and the workman was below the
age of forty five years, management neither considered the same nor did they respond to such representations. From
the fact and circumstances of this case and the evidence adduced, I find that the workman is about forty two years of
age now and still has several years of work left. It appears to me that the order of dismissal dismissing the workman
from service due to absence during his illness is a clear violation of the principle of Natural Justice. Management
ought to have consider the reason for which the workman could not attend duty. Evidence produced by the workman
cannot be overlooked, especially when such documents and evidence have not been challenged at the time of cross-
examination of the witness. In such view of matter, order of dismissal passed against the workman is arbitrary,
improper and not sustainable under law. Accordingly order of dismissal dated 13/03/2018 issued by the General
Manager, Kajora Area terminating the service of Manoj Hari, General Mazdoor is set aside. Management is directed
to reinstate the workman in his employment under ECL within two months from the date of communication of this
order. Management shall also pay thirty percent of back wages to the workman from the date of his dismissal till his
reinstatement in service.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest. Order of dismissal dated 13/03/2018 passed by the General Manager,
Kajora Area dismissing Manoj Hari from service of the company is set aside. Management is directed to reinstate the
workman within two months from the communication of this order, maintaining continuity of service of the workman.
Management shall also pay thirty percent of back wages to the workman from the date of his dismissal i.e. 08/03/2018
till his reinstatement in service and he shall also be entitled to the consequential benefits. Let an Award be drawn up
in the light of my above discussion. Let copies of Award be communicated to the Ministry for information and
Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7827
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2303.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj ई सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] आसनसोल dsiapkV(
-45/2023) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/11/2020-आईआर-(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/सलक अजधकारी
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. 45/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of ECL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/01/2026.
[No. L-22012/11/2020– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,
ASANSOL.
PRESENT:
Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,
Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.
REFERENCE CASE NO. 45 OF 2023
PARTIES: Rajesh Kumar Singh
(dependent son of Late Binod Kumar Singh)
Vs.
Management of Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery, ECL
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the Union/Workman:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.
For the Management of ECL:
Mr. P. K. Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:
Coal
STATE:
West Bengal.
Dated:
28.10.2025
AWARD
In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order L-
22012/11/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 09.06.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,
that is the Management of Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery under Bankola Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their
workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
“ Whether the action of the management of Kumardihi-B Colliery, Bankola Area, M/s. E.C.Ltd. in not
providing employment on compassionate ground to Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, S/O Late Binod Kumar Singh,
Ex-employee of Kumardihi-B Colliery is justified? If not, what relief the dependent son of deceased workman
is entitled to ? ”
1.
On receiving Order No. L-22025/01/2022-IR(CM-I) dated 11.09.2023 from the Government of India,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi enclosing copy of Order No. L-22012/11/2020-IR(CM-II) dated 09.06.2020 a
Reference case was registered on 25.09.2023. It appears that on earlier occasion the Order of Reference issued by the
Government of India dated 09.06.2020 was not received by this office, hence this delay. Notice was issued to the
parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant
documents in support of their claims.
7828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
Union filed written statement on 01.11.2023. Fact of the case which unfolds from in the written
statement is that Binod Kumar Singh was a permanent employee of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to
as ECL). He was posted as a Driver at Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery under Bahula Area of ECL and died in harness on
18.10.2016 leaving behind Rajesh Kumar Singh as his dependent son and Binda Kora as his widow. Rajesh Kumar
Singh informed the management about death of his father and prayed for his employment as per provisions of
National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA). The management held medical examination of
the dependent son at Central Hospital, Kalla on 03.05.2017 and report was submitted in Form ‗O‘. The dependent
submitted his Transfer Certificate issued by the School, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card, Ration Card where
his date of birth was recorded as 04.05.1983. According to Service Record Excerpt of his father his age was ten years
on 11.03.1991. The contention of the union is that Rajesh Kumar Singh was thirty-three years five months and
fourteen days on the date of death of his father and being below thirty-five years of age on the date of death of his
father he is entitled to employment under ECL as per provisions of Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA union prayed for directing
the management to provide employment to the dependent son, being the only son of the deceased employee and his
mother having expired earlier.
3.
Management contested the case by filing their written statement on 04.12.2023. According to the
management Rajesh Kumar Singh submitted an application for employment under the provision of NCWA. Due to
absence of authentic documents in support of his age Rajesh Kumar Singh was referred to the Medical Board for his
medical examination at Central Hospital, Kalla. On 03.05.2017, after examination a report was submitted where the
age of Rajesh Kumar Singh was assessed between 35 to 40 years. According to the management the mid-point of age
is considered as age of the applicant on the date. Accordingly, the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh is calculated as thirty-
seven years and six months on 03.05.2017 and he was found to be above the age of thirty-five years on the date of
death of his father and therefore he is not eligible for employment as per provisions of 9.3.4 of NCWA.
4.
Union examined Rajesh Kumar Singh as Workman Witness No. 1. The witness field his affidavit-in-chief
where he stated that his father died on 18.10.2016 while he was in the service of the company. As a dependent he
filed an application for providing employment to him as per provisions of NCWA. After proper screening at the
Colliery and Area Level he appeared for his Initial Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME) before the
IME Board at Central Hospital, Kalla. After medical examination the assessed age was not disclosed to him and the
proposal for his employment was not processed on the ground that he was over-age. It is further stated that the
management served a copy of letter addressed to the Personnel Manager (IC) where it was communicated to him that
Rajesh Kumar Singh was over-age and he was not entitled to employment. The union stated that according to various
documents his date of birth appeared as 04.05.1983. As per Service Records of his father management recorded the
age of Rajesh Kumar Singh as ten years on 11.03.1991. Even his Birth Certificate disclosed that his date of birth is
04.05.1983. According to the workman witness his age was 33 years 5 months and 14 days on the date of death of his
father and being below 35 years, he stood eligible for employment. According to the witness IME Board deliberately
decided his age above 35 years on the date of assessment without considering the Service Record and other
documents. The witness asserted that his date of birth appearing in the Transfer Certificate issued by his School and
Birth Certificate as well as the age recorded in the Service Record of his father should be accepted for providing
employment to him. The workman witness produced the following documents in support of his case :
(i)
Copy of the Death Registration Certificate of Binod Kumar Singh is produced as Exhibit W-1.
(ii)
Copy of application of Rajesh Kumar Singh addressed to the Agent, Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery,
informing his father‘s death, as Exhibit W-2.
(iii)
Copy of the Service Book of Binod Kumar Singh, as Exhibit W-3.
(iv)
Copy of the letter of Assistant Manager (Personnel), Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery addressed to the Chief
Manager (Personnel), Bankola Area, for IME of Rajesh Kumar Singh, as Exhibit W-4.
(v)
Copy of the No objection certificate in respect of Rajesh Kumar Singh, as Exhibit W-5.
(vi)
Copy of the Birth Registration Certificate of Rajesh Kumar Singh, as Exhibit W-6.
(vii)
Copy of the Aadhaar Card of Rajesh Kumar Singh, as Exhibit W-7.
(viii)
Copy of the letter of the Sr. Manager (Personnel) Empl/ED addressed to the Sr. Manager
(Personnel)/IC, Bankola Area for re-assessment of age of Rajesh Kumar Singh, as Exhibit W-8.
(ix)
Copy of the Transfer Certificate of Rajesh Kumar Singh issued by Fuleshwari Devi Memorial High
School, as Exhibit W-9.
5.
In cross-examination the witness admitted his signature on Exhibit M-1, a letter dated 05/11.08.2017 issued
by the Sr. Manager (Personnel)/IC, Bankola Area addressed to the Agent, Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery wherein it was
communicated that the Apex Medical Board assessed the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh on the date of death of Binod
Kumar Singh as 36 years 11 months and 15 days, as such he is not eligible for employment as per NCWA. The age
assessment report of Rajesh Kumar Singh has been marked as Exhibit M-2. It appears from the said document that his
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7829
age was assessed as 35 to 40 years as on 03.05.2017 by way of holding X-Ray of the Lateral Spinal Cord, Mandible,
Laryngeal Cartilage and Skull. Witness denied the suggestion that his claim for employment is not maintainable.
6.
Management examined Mr. Anuj Lakra, Manager (Personnel), Nakrakonda – Kumardihi ‗B‘ Collieries as
Management Witness No. 1. The witness in his affidavit-in-chief has reiterated the case disclosed by the management
in their written statement. According to the witness the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh on 03.05.2017 was assessed
between 35 to 40 years and it was communicated to him that he was disqualified for his employment due to over-age.
In his evidence-in-chief Management Witness No. 1 deposed that Rajesh Kumar Singh exceeded the age for
employment and for such reason his prayer for employment was regretted. The witness further deposed that Rajesh
Kumar Singh was 36 years 11 months and 15 days of age at the time of death of his father and was not eligible for
employment.
7.
In cross-examination the witness deposed that the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh was assessed in proper
manner. The witness denied that the documents produced by Rajesh Kumar Singh showed that his age was below 35
years on the date of death of his father.
8.
The point of contention in this case is whether the management of Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery, Bahula Area,
ECL is justified in not providing employment to Rajesh Kumar Singh on compassionate ground and what relief the
dependent son of the deceased is entitled to.
9.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, union representative advancing his argument submitted that according to the provisions
of Clause 9.3.2 of NCWA the dependent son of the deceased employee is entitled to compassionate appointment on
the death of his father. Clause 9.3.4 prescribes that for grant of compassionate appointment the concerned dependent
should be physically fit and suitable for employment with age not more than 35 years. It is submitted that the
dependent son by his letter dated 21.10.2016 informed the Agent / Manager, Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery about the death
of his father on 18.10.2016 and prayed for employment.A copy of letter is produced as Exhibit W-2. The dependent
son was asked to appear before the screening committee of the management and thereafter his medical examination
was held on 03.05.2017 where his age was assessed as 35 to 40 years. It is argued that as per Service Record the age
of the dependent son was 33 years and 6 months on the date of death of his father. Mr. Rakesh Kumar heavily relied
upon the Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate of Rajesh Kumar Singh which have been produced as
Exhibit W-6 and W-9 respectively, where the date of birth is recorded as 04.05.1983. It is submitted that the deceased
employee left behind Sarita Devi, a married daughter who had submitted her no objection in favour of his brother and
the same is produced as Exhibit W-5. The union representative strenuously argued that when the School Leaving
Certificate and Birth Registration Certificate were produced the management should have considered the same for
determination of age and management should consider the guidelines laid down in Annexure-I of Implementation
Instruction No. 76 of NCWA, relating to procedure for determination and verification of age. It is submitted that in
case of non-matriculate but educated candidates where the candidate pursued studies in a recognized educational
institution, the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate should be treated as correct date of birth and
the same will not be altered under any circumstances. It is argued that in the instant case Rajesh Kumar Singh studied
up to Class-IX at Fuleshwari Devi Memorial High School at Ukhra, Burdwan and is a literate person. Therefore,
management should consider his date of birth as 04.05.1983 appearing in the Transfer Certificate / Schlool Leaving
Certificate for the purpose of his employment. It is argued that the dependent son is entitled to employment.
10.
Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the management of ECL argued that according to the Service Book
of the deceased employee (Exhibit W-3), the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh was recorded as 10 years as on 11.03.1991.
Therefore, his age may be computed as 35 years and 7 months on the date of death of his father on 18.10.2016.
Learned advocate referred to the IME report (Exhibit M-2), where after holding X-ray examination of various parts of
body the IME Board assessed the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh as 35 to 40 years on the date of examination i.e.,
03.05.2017. It is argued that as per rules the mid-point of the assessed age is considered to be the age of the person on
the date of examination and it is abundantly clear that the dependent son of the deceased employee is more than 35
years of age on the date of death of his father and he was not eligible for employment as per Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA.
Learned advocate argued that the Birth Certificate (Exhibit W-6) and Transfer Certificate (Exhibit W-9) are not
reliable documents as the Birth Certificate was obtained in the year 2014 and it is not a cotemporaneous document.
The union has not examined the Headmaster of the School to establish the date of birth appearing in the Transfer
Certificate based upon the date appearing in the Admission Register. It is further argued that Annexure-I of the
Implementation Instruction No. 76 of NCWA is applicable to the employees of the company for determining any
dispute regarding their age and the same terms do not apply to the person claiming employment for the first time.
Learned advocate submitted that the candidate claiming employment was informed by the management by letter dated
05/11.08.2017 (Exhibit M-1) and 09.07.2018 (Exhibit W-8) that the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh was assessed by
Central Hospital, Kalla and his proposal for employment is regretted for being over-age. It is argued that the
dependent is not entitled for any employment.
11.
Perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced and rival arguments advanced on behalf of the union
and management. The bone of contention is whether the dependent son had already attained the age of 35 years on the
date of death of his father, on 18.10.2016 and he is entitled to compassionate appointment under Clause 9.3.4 of
7830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NCWA. It is a well settled law that NCWA is a settlement under Section 2(p) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
is binding upon the employer and employees under Section 18(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The binding effect
of NCWA has been discussed and clearly spelt out by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the cases of Eastern
Coalfields Limited Vs. Kumari Kiran Singh and Others [AIRONLINE 2018 CAL 1593] and Sukumoni
Hembram alias Sukumoni Mejhan Vs. Union of India and Others [MAT 27 of 2024]. Since the terms and
conditions for granting employment to the dependent has been specified in the provisions of NCWA, any deviating
from such terms is permissible for the purpose of granting employment to a person claiming for employment as a
dependent. In the instant case initiating the process for employment of Rajesh Kumar Singh, management held age
assessment through the Medical Board on 03.05.2017. The concerned dependent did no raise any objection against
holding of age assessment examination by the Medical Board of the employer company. It appears from Exhibit M-2
that scientific investigation was carried out for the purpose of assessing the age according to medical jurisprudence
and his age was assessed between 35 to 40 years. The accepted position is that the midpoint of the range of age is
accepted to be the age of a person for all functional purpose. Accordingly, it transpires that Rajesh Kumar Singh was
36 years and 11 months on the date of death. From the Service Book of the deceased employee (Exhibit W-3) it is
gathered that the age of Rajesh Kumar Singh was recorded as 10 years as on 11.03.1991, therefore his age on the date
of death of his father can be assessed as 35 years, 7 months and 7 days and he is therefore found over-age for his
employment. The union has produced two other relevant documents in support of the age of the claimant. A Birth
Registration Certificate issued by Munger District Gram Panchayet Office, Government of Bihar dated 11.08.2014
where the registration appears to have been made on 09.08.2014. The date of birth recorded in the certificate as
04.05.1983 cannot be considered as sacrosanct as the registration has been made after a lapse of thirty-one years and
the contents of such certificate which is not contemporaneous is only based upon hearsay material. The Transfer
Certificate which is heavily relied upon by the union has been admitted in the evidence as Exhibit W-9. The document
reveals that at the time of leaving the school on 30.04.1997 he was studying in Class-VIII and was promoted to Class-
IX. The Headmaster of the School was not summoned by the union for proving the contents of the Transfer
Certificate. The Admission Register was not produced for verification of such certificate. Under such circumstances I
am not inclined to place reliance upon the Transfer Certificate for the purpose of accepting 04.05.1983 as the date of
birth of Rajesh Kumar Singh.
12.
The union representative argued that Clause A (ii) of Annexure-I of the Implementation Instruction No. 76 of
NCWA has to be followed for determining the age of non-matriculate but literate candidate by accepting the date of
birth of the candidate appearing in the School Leaving Certificate. On a careful consideration I find that
Implementation Instruction No. 76 is a part of NCWA and provides procedure for resolving age dispute of the
employees and it also deals with various situation where the appointee is a matriculate, non-matriculate but educated,
ex-serviceman, or an illiterate person. In my considered view such provisions are not applicable to persons who claim
compassionate appointment. A claimant in order to succeed must strictly prove that he has fulfilled all the required
terms and conditions for compassionate employment. In the present case the union has failed to prove that the
dependent son was below 35 years of age on the date of death of his father. Therefore, I hold that Rajesh Kumar
Singh is not entitled to compassionate employment under Clause 9.3.4 of NCWA. The management‘s case is fortified
by the report of IME as well as Service Book which prove that the claimant was over-age on 18.10.2016. The
decision of the management of Kumardihi ‗B‘ Colliery, Bankola Area, ECL in not providing employment to Rajesh
Kumar Singh on compassionate ground is consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions
of NCWA binding the parties. The dependent son is consequently not entitled to any relief in this case. The Industrial
Dispute is liable to be dismissed on contest.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest. Rajesh Kumar Singh, dependent son of the deceased
employee, Binod Kumar Singh is not entitled to any relief and I find no illegality in the action of management of
Eastern Coalfields Limited in not providing employment to the son. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above
findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and Notification.
ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2304.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एसईसीएलds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7831
–सह–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV(एलसी/आर-19/2019
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/166/2018-आईआर-(सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/सलक अजधकारी
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/R/19/2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of SECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/01/2026.
[No. L-22012/166/2018– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/19/2019
Present: P.K. Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
Shri D.P. Saraf
Join Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congre
Address – Qtr. No. E-22, 15 Block SECL
Colony Korba, Tahsil – Korba (C.G.)
Workman
Versues
The Sub Area Manager,
SECL, Rajgamar Sub Area,
Po- Rajgamar,
Distt. Korba (C.G.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 17th day of October - 2025)
As per letter dated 10/01/2019 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-
22012/166/2018 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 10/01/2019. The dispute under reference relates to:
“WHETHER THE ACTION ON THE PART OF SUB AREA MANAGER SECL, RAJGAMAR
COLLIERY IN NOT MAKING O.T PAYMENT ON THE BASIS OF O.T SLIP PEREORMED BY SHRI
D.P. SARAF, EX- CHIEF STORE KEEPER AND JOINT SECRETARY OF RASTRIYA COLLIERY
MAZDOOR CONGRESS AS PER THE ACTUAL O.T HOURS PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD
FROM 13-05-2013 ΤΟ 30-07-2017 IS APPROPRIATE AND JUSTIFIED? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF
SHRI D.P.SARAF, EX- CHIEF STORE KEEPER AND JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY OF RCMC 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 has been appointed as Chief Storekeeper with the Management
from 13.05.2013 to 30.06.2017 and has superannuated on 30.06.2017 after completing the age for superannuation.
While in his posting he was instructed by Management to collect different articles from Regional Store Korba Area,
7832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Central Warehouse Korba and Central Store which were about 17 to 18 kilometers from the place of his posting in
Rajgamar. He was not provided any vehicle for this purpose. As per rules he is required to work only for six and half
hours a day and is entitled to overtime for any hour in excess of this six and half hours period. He had to work for
more than six and half hours prescribed for execution of the directions of Management to fetch the articles from these
stores, and deposit them with Rajgamar store. He used to mention the time when he proceed to these stores and
returned back to Rajgamar as well remained in the Rajgamar Office, which has been destroyed by Management. He
had prepared worksheet mentioning the hours he worked, which was not counter signed by the Office of Management
and when he claimed over time dues for the work he did in cases of his prescribed working hours, his this demand
was also refused by the Management which is unjust, illegal and arbitrary. Thus, he has claimed that Management be
directed to pay him the amount calculated by him as overtime with interest and fine.
Case of Management is that, the Management used to send the Workman from Rajgamar Colliery to
different stores mentioned by him for collecting articles for which he produced his TA bills and his expenses were
reimbursed on the basis of his TA bills. It is further the case of the Management that, when a person is sent to another
place for official job, he is required to be paid his travelling expenses and DA for the job date. There is no provision
of payment of overtime allowances in such cases. Management has thus prayed that reference be answered against the
Workman.
Both the sides have filed affidavits and documents, which are different orders of Management directing him
to visit the stores and collect the articles, TA Bills of the Workman.
I have heard the Workman in person and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anoop Nair for the Management
assisted by Learned Counsel Mr. Neeraj Kewat. I have gone through the record as well.
The main argument from the side of Management is that, there is no provision for payment of overtime to a
workman who is sent to a place different than the place where he is posted. In such cases, as per Rules the Workman
is reimbursed his travelling expenses and TA for the date subject to Rules.
Coal India Travelling Allowances Rules, 2010
Para 10.2.2 & 10.2.5 requires to be referred in this respect and is being reproduced as follows:
10.2.2
When the distance between the two places is 32 kilometers or less :-
The amount reimbursable shall be the actual fare, by stage carriage (e.g. a bus) for non-
executive cadre employees drawing pay less than Rs. 23479.55/- per month and in cases of other non-
executive & executive cadre employees including Management Trainees, the actual fare provided that the
journey is performed by taxi, auto-rickshaws, deluxe buses, AC buses etc.
Note: Non-executive cadre employees drawing pay Rs.22149.01/- per month and above will be
entitled to travel by the upper class in a stage carriage where more than one class is provided. They will be
entitled to travel by deluxe buses also. (Authority: No. CIL/C-5A(PC)/ TA-2010/164 Date: 03.10.2012)
Perusal of these Rules, makes it clear that there is no provision of payment of overtime in such
situation.
10.2.5
Reimbursement of local traveling expenses (RLTE) to employees for attending duties on
Sundays/Holidays or during odd hours on working days:
Reimbursement at the rate specified in Rule 10.2.1/10.2.2 from residence to place of duty and
back, will be allowed subject to following conditions:
a) No such reimbursement will be allowed if Over Time Allowance has been paid or compensatory leave
is allowed for duties performed.
b) Odd hours for this purpose will be reckoned from 8-00 p.m. to 8-00 a.m.
c) Where the journey by train is involved, reimbursement of Taxi/Auto fare or stage carriage charges
will be limited to connecting distances between place of duty/place of residence and Railway station
besides the Railway fare as per entitled class.
(d) No employees will be entitled for reimbursement of local travelling expenses (RLTE) for attending
duties on Sundays, Holidays or during odd hours on working days from residence to office and back.
However, Executives will be reimbursed RLTE if they are on official duty from office to any other
place.
Hence, in the light of above discussion, holding the action of Management in not granting the
Workman overtime for the extra hours on work since he was paid travelling allowances when he was sent to
some other places for collection of materials by Management is held just, legal and proper and the reference
stands answered accordingly.
DATE:- 17/10/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7833
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2305.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एसईसीएलds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV (एलसी/आर-126/2012
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/136/2012-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/सलक अजधकारी
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference. LC/R/126/2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management
of SECL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/01/2026.
[No. L-22012/136/2012– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/126/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
The General Secretary,
Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS),
Qtr. No. M/91, Vikas Nagar,
Post – Kusmunda,
District – Korba (C.G.)
Workman
Versues
The General Manager,
SECL Kusmunda Area,
Post- Kusmunda,
District – Korba (C.G.)
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 13 th day of November - 2025)
As per letter dated 05/11/2012 of 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-
22012/136/2012 (IR(CM-II)) dt. 05/11/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Kusmunda Area of SECL, District Korba
(CG) not given the notional seniority in EP Fitter cum Mechanic Grade-I, in Category-'B' to Shri S.R.
Maneshwar of Kusmunda Area as per the Arbitration award with effect from 23.12.1988 at par as given to
their after workmen in SECL Gevra Area was legal and justified? What relief the said workman is entitled
to and from what date?”
After registering the case on the basis of reference Notices were issued to both the parties. They appeared
and filed their respective statement of claim and defense.
7834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The undisputed facts are that, the Applicant Workman Shesh Ram Maneshwar was appointed in the Korba
West Area of SECL as Mechanic (trainee) along with three other workers namely Dhani Ram Patle, L.P. Rahangdale
and Lakhan Lal Jhothe vide appointment letter dated SECL/GM/KB(W)/PM/APPMNT/87/3977 dated 12.11.1987.
Later on, the Korba West Area was split into three different areas viz; Gevra, Kusmunda and Korba. The three
Workmen i.e. Dhani Ram Patle, L.P. Rahangdale and Lakhan Lal Jhothe were posted in Gevra Area whereas the
Applicant Workman was posted in Kusmunda Area. Dhani Ram Patle claimed notional seniority before the
Management and his case was sent for joint arbitration. Award dated 23.12.1992 was passed by the Arbitrators
holding the Workman Dhani Ram Patle entitled to be regularized as Fitter cum Mechanic Grade-I in Group – B on
completion of his successful one year training. The remaining two workers i.e. L.P. Rahangdale and Lakhan Lal
Jhothe also claimed the same regularization on the basis of Arbitration Award and they were promoted notionally in
seniority in Grade – I Group - B w.e.f. 23.12.1988 vide Office order No. SECL/DGM/GBR/95/4021. The
Management refused same benefit to the Applicant Workman on the ground that he was posted in Kusmunda Area of
the Company and not in the Gevra Area where other workmen, who were benefited, were posted. The Management
further took the ground that, the Award was with respect to Workman D.R. Patle only posted in Gevra Area and
because it will disturb the settled seniority list in the Kusmunda where the applicant workman is posted. Another case
of Management is that, the claim is barre,d by unexplained delay and latches.
The Workman side has filed Office Order dated 10.11.1995/12.12.1995 regarding promotion of L.P.
Rahangdale and Lakhan Lal Jhothe w.e.f. 23.12.1986 with D.R. Patle as per arbitration Award, Copy of petition
before Labour Commissioner, reply of Management, Rejoinder of Union, Failure report which are Exhibit W-1 to W-
6. Management has filed the memorandum of settlement with regard to promotion of L.P. Rahangdale and Lakhan Lal
Jhothe in the light of Award with respect to D.R. Patle. An Office Order dated 10.11.1995/12.12.1995 which have
been filed by the Workman Union also.
Both the sides have filed affidavit with respect to their claims and defense. It also appears that, the
Workman died during the pendency of the Case but since the case is espoused by the Union and Act specifically
provides that no reference was abated on the basis of Claimant Workman. This reference will also not abate.
None was present for Workman Union at the time of argument. I have heard argument of Learned Counsel
Mr. Neeraj Kewat for the Management and I have gone through the record.
From perusal of record, it establishes that four persons including the claimant workman were appointed on
one day in Korba West Area and worked together in the same area, later on this Korba Area was divided into three
areas. Three employees went to Gevra Area and the claimant Workman was absorbed in the Kusmunda Area. Three
co-workers of the Claimant Workman with identical claims were granted their claims by the Management were else
the claimant workman was refused the relief on the ground that he was in a different area. It is not disputed all these
areas are controlled and managed as well governed by the one Company South Eastern Coal Field Limited which is
itself a subsidiary of Coal India. In these circumstances, refusal of relief of promotion as claimed by the Claimant
Workman in parity with other beneficiaries, who had identical claims, only on the ground that it will disturb the
settled seniority list in the area is nothing but arbitrary and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, in the light of above discussion and findings the Claimant Workman Shesh Ram Maneshwar is
also held entitled to be promoted from Fitter cum Mechanic Grade-I Category-C to Category-B after
completion of his successful training of one year i.e. from 23.12.1988 in parity with the Workman Dhani Ram
Patle, L.P. Rahangdale and Lakhan Lal Jhothe and is held entitled to get all benefits in this respect from
Management accordingly treating him to be notionally promoted from 23.12.1988. However, the mandatory
benefits could be given from 12.12.1995 i.e. the date of promotion of other co-workers mentioned above.
The reference stands answered accordingly.
AWARD
Holding the action of the management of General Manager, Kusmunda Area of SECL, District Korba
(CG) not given the notional seniority in EP Fitter cum Mechanic Grade-I, in Category-'B' to Shri S.R. Maneshwar
of Kusmunda Area as per the Arbitration award with effect from 23.12.1988 at par as given to their after workmen
in SECL Gevra Area illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, he is held entitled to get all benefits in this respect from
Management accordingly treating him to be notionally promoted from 23.12.1988. However, the mandatory
benefits could be given from 12.12.1995 i.e. the date of promotion of other co-workers mentioned above.
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 13/11/2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7835
नई ददल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2026
का.आ. 2306.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;
ljdkj एन सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
–सह–
] जबलपुर ds iapkV(एलसी/आर-86/2012
) dks izdkf”kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[सं. एल-22012/86/2012-आईआर (सी.एम-II)]
सलोनी, उप जनदेिक/सलक अजधकारी
New Delhi, the 2nd January, 2026
S.O. 2306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Reference.LC/R/86/2012) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
Management of NCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 01/01/2026.
[No. L-22012/86/2012– IR (CM-II)]
SALONI, Dy Director/Link officer
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/ R/86/2012
Present: P.K.Srivastava
H.J.S.(Retd.)
1.
The General Manager,
Coalfields Labour Union, M-269, Bina Project,
Po-Bina, Distt-Sonebhadra,
Uttar Pradesh
Workman
Vs
1.
The General Manager,
Central Workshop, Jayant Project of NCL,
Po/Distt- Singrauli,
Madhya Pradesh
2.
The General Manager (Personnel),
Northern Coalfields Limited,
Po/Distt- Singrauli,
Madhya Pradesh
Management
(JUDGMENT)
(Passed on this 10th day of November, 2025)
As per letter dated 25/07/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference
has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‗Act‟) as per
Notification No. L-22012/86/2012(IR(CM-II)) dt. 25/07/2012. The dispute under reference relates to:-
“Whether the action of the General Manager, Central Workshop, Jayant Project of NCL, in imposing
punishment of Suspension, Stoppage of increment & Penal rent, on an alleged misconduct of illegal
occupying of the quarter by Shri J.P. Singh, Fitter (vacated during the course of enquiry proceedings), is
legal and justified? To what relief the claimant is entitled for, and from which date?”
7836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 10, 2026/PAUSHA 20, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 Fitter with the management, he was
issued a charge sheet alleging misconduct under clause 26.14 of certified standing orders on his part by way of
illegally and unauthorizedly breaking open residential accommodation MQ-463 of management and occupying it
illegally without any allotment in his favour. This charge sheet dated 11.09.2000 was replied by him but ignoring his
reply, the management conducted an enquiry with respect to the allegations arbitrarily and without observing
principles of natural justice. Charges were wrongly held proved and the punishment in form of stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect as well penal rent imposed on the workman is also excessive to the misconduct.
The workman has prayed that holding this action of management against law and unjustified, the punishment
be set aside.
Case of the management is that the workman has been in habit of committing misconduct, he was issued a
charge sheet on 12.07.1995 alleging misconduct as defined under clause 26.3, 26.5, 26.16 and 26.22 of certified
standing orders, which were enquired into and after the charges were proved in enquiry he was punished. He did not
improve himself and repeated the misconduct in the year 2000 by way of unauthorizedly and illegally breaking open
the company‘s accommodation No. 459-Q forcibly and taking illegal possession in the said residence which is
misconduct under clause 26.14 of certified standing orders, after his reply was found in sufficient, an enquiry was
conducted, as per rules the workman was found guilty of misconduct in the enquiry and he was punished, which is not
excessive to the misconduct proved and keeping in view the fact that he is a habitual offender; management has
requested that the reference be answered against the workman.
Following Preliminary Issue was framed on the basis of pleadings:-
Whether the departmental enquiry conducted is legal and proper?
On the basis of evidence, this issue was answered vide order dated 23.02.2024, the departmental enquiry
was held vitiated in law, management was granted opportunity to prove the charge before this Tribunal. This order is
part of this judgment and award.
The management filed affidavit of its witness Anand Murti, General Manager in support of charge as his
Examination-in-chief. He was cross-examined by workman side, he has proved the documents which were proved
during the hearing of preliminary issue.
No evidence in rebuttal was filed by workman.
I have heard argument of Learned Counsel for workman Mr. Arun Patel and Mr. Neeraj Kewat, Learned
Counsel for the management. 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 charges are proved from the evidence before this Tribunal?
2)
Whether the punishment is proportionate to the charges proved?
Issue No.1,
Charges have been elaborated earlier, the management witness has stated that the workman entered in
quarter No. MQ-463 illegally after breaking lock, inspite of the fact that he was allotted quarter No. MQ-458 and
occupied the said quarter No. MQ-463 illegally. He referred to document M-E/9 entry dated 16.03.1989 in this
respect which is handing over or taking over register. This witness also states that later on the workman vacated the
MQ-463 which he had illegally occupied after breaking open its lock. An enquiry was conducted in this respect and
was punished with permanent stoppage of one increment and deduction of penal rent for illegally occupying for the
period he had illegally occupied the accommodation.
There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit this witness.
The case of the workman is that he was entitled to one accommodation from the company residence
which was vacant, it has been the practice and it is usual for the employees who break open the vacant residence and
enter. Thereafter, the company allots the residence to the workman. Learned counsel for workman has submitted that
since the workman was entitled to one accommodation which was not being provided by the management inspite of
the fact that there were vacant accommodations available and there were incidences of such nature earlier also, in
which the workers broke open the vacant accommodation and took possession of the accommodations without
allotment, the workman could not be held guilty of the misconduct.
I am not inclined to accept this argument on the ground that if the workman was not allotted any
accommodation, he would be getting house rent allowances and only entitlement does not gave anyone license to
commit illegality. Thus, when there is clear evidence that the workman illegally occupied the accommodation without
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 10, 2026/पौष 20, 1947
7837
allotment, he cannot be exonerated from the charge only on the ground that he was entitled to get one accommodation
and accommodations were vacant. Hence, in light of above discussion, the charge of misconduct is held proved
against the workman.
Issue No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 2,
Workman has been awarded punishment of permanent stoppage of one increment and recovery of penal rent
from him as well pay of suspension period has also not been given to him by way of punishment. Learned counsel for
workman has submitted that this is an excessive punishment compared to the charges. His main grievance is with
respect to permanent stoppage of one increment in the punishment order which is its replicating effect.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for management that the workman is a habitual
offender, he has committed misconduct earlier also for which he has been punished. Hence, keeping in view these
facts the punishment order cannot be said to be an excessive one. He further submits that the punishment order does
not warrant any interference.
Settled proposition of law is that the punishment is domain of Executive and Courts and Tribunals, who be
hesitant in interfering with the punishment orders until and unless they are satisfied, it is so disproportionate that it
shocks the conscious of the Court or Tribunal.
To consider whether the punishment order is shockingly disproportionate to the charge, the nature and effect
of the misconduct proved, previous conduct will entirely be the factors to be considered.
In the case in hand, undisputedly, the workman has a history of misconduct. Permanent stoppage of
increment has its replicating effect and it harms the workman till his superannuation and also thereafter. The workman
was entitled to accommodation from the management which were vacated at the time of misconduct but the process
adopted by workman was not a correct way of enforcing his rights. This fact that after another accommodation was
allotted to him, the workman vacated the said accommodation which he had occupied forcibly, the punishment of
cumulative stoppage appears too harsh. Hence, keeping in this fact, the sentence of cumulative stoppage of one
increment is converted into stoppage of one increment for five years and the punishment stands modified accordingly.
Issue No. 2 stands answered accordingly.
In light of above discussion and findings, the reference is answered as follows.-
AWARD
“Holding the action of the General Manager, Central Workshop, Jayant Project of NCL, in imposing
punishment of Suspension, Stoppage of increment & Penal rent, on an alleged misconduct of illegal occupying of
the quarter by Shri J.P. Singh, Fitter (vacated during the course of enquiry proceedings), excessive, the stoppage of
one increment with cumulative effect is converted into stoppage of one increment for five years.”
No order as to cost.
DATE:- 10-11-2025
P.K. SRIVASTAVA, 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: 2026.01.14 16:13:29 +05'30'