587 GI/2026

(555)

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. 4]

नइ ददल् ली, फरवरी 1—फरवरी 7, 2026, िजनवार/माघ 12—माघ 18, 1947

No. 4]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 1—FEBRUARY 7, 2026, SATURDAY/MAGHA 12––MAGHA 18, 1947

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

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—ईृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

नइ ददल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2026

का.अ. 90.—केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के ईृ-जनयम (4) के ऄनुसरण में, राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय ऄप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड के ऄधीन जनम्नजलजखत

कायाडलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से ऄजधक ऄजधकाररयों एवं कमडचाररयों ने जहन्दी का कायड साधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज,

को ऄजधसूजचत करती हज।

क्रम सं.

कायाडलय का नाम

सहायक अयुक्त का कायाडलय, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर तथा केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क,

वाराणसी-211002

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-17022026-270213

CG-DL-W-17022026-270213

556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

सहायक अयुक्त का कायाडलय, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर तथा केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क,

अजमगढ़ मण्डल-अजमगढ़ -276001 (ईत्तर प्रदेि)

सहायक अयुक्त का कायाडलय, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर तथा केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क,

जमजाडृुर-231001 (ईत्तर प्रदेि)

ईृ/सहायक अयुक्त का कायाडलय, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर तथा केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क,

गोरखृुर मण्डल-I-273001 (ईत्तर प्रदेि)

ईृ/सहायक अयुक्त का कायाडलय, केंरीय माल और सेवा कर तथा केंरीय ईत्ृाद िुल्क,

गोरखृुर मण्डल-II-273001 (ईत्तर प्रदेि)

प्रधान अयुक्त का कायाडलय, सीमा िुल्क, ऄहमदाबाद-380009

[फा. सं. इ-11017/3/2017- जहन्दी-2-ऄजधसूचना]

प्रीजत सेलारे, ईृ जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2026

S.O. 90.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies, the following offices under Central Board of Indirect

Taxes and Customs, Department of Revenue where more than 80% staff has acquired the working knowledge

of Hindi.

S.No.

Name of the Office

Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central

Excise, Varanasi-211002

Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central

Excise, Azamgarh Division-Azamgarh-276001 (Uttar Pradesh)

Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and Central

Excise, Mirzapur, Varanasi-231001(Uttar Pradesh)

Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service

Tax and Central Excise, Gorakhpur Division-I-273001(Uttar Pradesh)

Office of the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service

Tax and Central Excise, Gorakhpur Division-II-273001(Uttar Pradesh)

Office of the Principal Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad-380009

[F. No. E-11017/3/2017- Hindi-2-Notification]

PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

557

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 12 जनवरी, 2026

का.अ. 91.—केन्रीय सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजडन)

ऄजधजनयम,1962(1962 का 50)जजसे आसमें आसके ृश्चात ईक्त ऄजधजनयम कहा गया हज ) की धारा 3की ईृधारा (1)के

ऄधीन जारी की गइ भारत सरकार के ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गजस मंत्रालय की ऄजधसूचना सं्‍या का. अ. 1038(ऄ)

तारीख 2माचड,2023,जो भारत के ऄसाधारण राजृत्र तारीख 3 माचड,2023,में प्रकाजषत की गइ थी,द्वारा ईस ऄजधसूचना

से संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में हररयाणा राज्य में रोहतक-ृानीृत ृाआृलाआन (मेहसाणा- बठ डा ृाआृलाआन के

जलए, रंक ृाआृलाआन को ृानीृत तक बढ़ाया गया) के माध्यम से प्राकृजतक गजस के ृररवहन के जलए जीएसृीएल आंजडया

गजसनेट जलजमटेड़ (जीअआजीएल) द्वारा ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के प्रयोजन के जलए ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजडन के ऄृने

अषय की घोषणा की थी;

और ईक्त ऄसाधारण राजृत्र ऄजधसूचना की प्रजतयां जनता को तारीख 20.03.2023 तक ईृलब्ध करा दी गइ

थी;

और सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने ईक्त ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1)के ऄधीन केन्रीय सरकार को ररृोटड दे दी हज

और केन्रीय सरकार ने ईक्त ररृोटड ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात,और यह समाधान हो जाने ृर दक ईक्त भूजम ृाआृलाआन

जबछाने के जलए ऄृेजक्षत हज,ईसमें ईृयोग के ऄजधकार का ऄजडन करने का जवजनश्चय दकया हज ;

ऄतः ऄब केन्रीय सरकार ईक्त ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6 की ईृधारा (1)द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए

यह घोषणा करती हज दक आस ऄजधसूचना से संलग्न ऄनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में ृाआृलाआन जबछाने के जलए ईृयोग के

ऄजधकार का ऄजडन दकया जाए;

और केन्रीय सरकार ईक् त ऄजधजनयम की धारा 6की ईृधारा (4)द्वारा प्रदत्त िजक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए,यह

जनदेि देती हज दक ईक्त भूजम में ईृयोग का ऄजधकार आस घोषणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से केन्रीय सरकार में जनजहत होने

के बजाए]सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर जीएसृीएल आंजडया गजसनेट जलजमटेड़ (जीअआजीएल) में जनजहत होगा।

ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन ऄजधजनयम,1962की धारा 10के ऄध्याधीन दकसी भी क्षजतृूर्तत के जलए

जीएसृीएल आंजडया गजसनेट जलजमटेड़ (जीअआजीएल) ृूणडतया ईत्तरदायी होगी और ृाआृलाआन से सम्बजन्धत दकसी भी

मामले ृर केन्रीय सरकार के जवप द्ध कोइ वाद]दावा या कानूनी कायडवाही नहीं हो सकेगी।

क्रम सं.

ग्रॉम का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगडमीटर

तहसील: गोहाना

जजला: सोनीृत

राज्य: हररयाणा

ररवाडा

56//4/2/2

(एच.बी.नं.70)

75//4/1

ईृ-तहसील: खानृुर

जजला: सोनीृत

राज्य: हररयाणा

जचढ़ाना

69//9/2

(ऄेच.बी.नं. 52)

8//19/1/2/2

50//7

50//5

558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

क्रम सं.

ग्रॉम का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगडमीटर

45//25/2

तहसील: मडलौडा

जजला: ृानीृत

राज्य: हररयाणा

मजहयूदीनृुर जथराना

84//9/2

(ऄेच.बी.नं. 9)

84//9/1

117

41//24

खंडरा

87//1

(ऄेच.बी.नं.10)

332

73//21

72//25

72//24

72//23

72//18

72//13/2

72//13/1

72//8

72//3

68//23

68//18

68//13

ररकलां (ऄेच.बी.नं. 29)

139//15/2

बोहली

185

(ऄेच.बी.नं.12)

183

196

59//3

59//4

33//24

33//25

451

33//16

34//11

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

559

क्रम सं.

ग्रॉम का नाम

खसरा नं.

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

एयर

वगडमीटर

34//20

34//8

34//3

203

31//25/1

31//25/2

30//21

30//22/1

30//22/2

तहसील: इसराना

जजला: ृानीृत

राज्य: हररयाण

कारद (ऄेच.बी.नं. 01)

93//11/2

इसराना

64//13/1/2/1

(ऄेच.बी.नं.6667)

64//13/1/2/2

13//1/2/3

[फा. सं. एल-14014/241/2022-जीृी-II(E-45342)]

रामजीलाल मीणा, ऄवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2026

S.O. 91.—Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas S.O. No. 1038 (E) dated the 2^nd March 2023, issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said

Act), published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of India dated the 3^rd March 2023, the Central Government declared its

intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose

of laying pipeline in State of Haryana for the transportation of NaturalGas through Rohtak-Panipat Pipeline (trunk

pipeline expanded up-to Panipat for Mehsana- Bathinda Pipeline)by GSPL INDIA GASNET LIMITED (GIGL);

And whereas copies of the said Extra Ordinary Gazette notification were made available to the public up to

20.03.2023.

And whereas the competent authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act submitted report

to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said

land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire right of user therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the

Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in GSPL INDIA GASNET LIMTED (GIGL),

free from all encumbrances.

560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

GSPL INDIA GASNET LIMITED (GIGL) shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of

Section 10 of the P&MP Act, 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government

on any matter relating to the pipeline.

SCHEDULE

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq.Mt.

TEHSIL: GOHANA

DISTRICT: SONIPAT

STATE: HARYANA

REWARA

56//4/2/2

(H.B. NO. 70)

75//4/1

SUB-TEHSIL: KHANPUR

DISTRICT: SONIPAT

STATE:HARYANA

CHIDANA

69//9/2

(H.B.No.52)

8//19/1/2/2

50//7

50//5

45//25/2

TEHSIL: MADHOULDA

DISTRICT: PANIPAT

STATE:HARYANA

MAHIYUDINPUR

84//9/2

THIRANA

84//9/1

(H.B.No.52)

117

41//24

KHANDARA

87//1

(H.B.No.10)

332

73//21

72//25

72//18

72//13/2

72//13/1

72//8

72//3

68//23

68//18

68//13

RER KALAN (H.B. NO.

29)

139//15/2

BOHALI

185

(H.B.No.12)

183

196

59//3

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

561

Sr.

No.

Name of Village

Khasra No.

Area

Hect

Are

Sq.Mt.

BOHALI

59//4

(H.B.No.12)

33//24

33//25

451

33//16

34//11

34//20

34//8

34//3

203

31//25/1

31//25/2

30//21

30//22/1

30//22/2

TEHSIL: ISHRANA

DISTRICT: PANIPAT

STATE:HARYANA

KARAD (H.B.No.01)

93//11/2

ISHRANA (H.B.No.6667)

64//13/1/2/1

64//13/1/2/2

13//1/2/3

[F. No. L-14014/241/2022-GP-II(E-45342)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2026

का.अ. 92.—isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varxZr eSllZ fjyk;al bZFksu ikbiykbUk fyfeVsM ¼vkj-bZ-ih-,y½ ds

}kjk egkjk’Vz jkT; esa bZFksu ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds —R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus ds fy,]

Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh] Hkkjr ds jkti= fnukad 6 vxLr] 2022 dks

izdkf”kr vf/klwpuk dk-vk- 3719 ¼v½ fnukad 4 vxLr] 2022 }kjk izkf/k—r] esSa] vfuy ukFkwjke lkoar] mi

lekgrkZ ¼lsokfuo`Rr½] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;ekoyh]

1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds uhps nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa] eSllZ

vkj-bZ-ih-,y-] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ml {ks= esa

ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] ds ijke”kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LrEHk 4 esa egkjk’Vª jkT; ds ftyk iky?kj

esa izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk gw¡A

nkipjh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

czkaEg.kaokMh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&10&2017

iMhZ

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

iqatkos

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

28&01&2023

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

28&01&2023

138 ¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

lkloan

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

28&01&2023

138 ¼v½

fnukad

28&12&2022

28&01&2023

fpapys

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

25&07&2024

3393¼v½

fnukad

27&10&2016

25&07&2024

1609¼v½

fnukad

12&04&2018

25&07&2024

2528 ¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

/kkfuojh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

1836¼v½

fnukad

01&05&2018

31&10&2017

nsÅj

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

nghxkao

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

vo/kkuh

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

foOgyos<s

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

1609¼v½

fnukad

12&04&2018

31&10&2017

pkjksfV

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

HkjkM

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

?kksy

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

dksYgku

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

ros

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

cÚgk.kiwj

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

lkseVs

2771¼v½

fnukad

30&09&2015

31&10&2017

3393¼v½

fnukad

27&10&2016

31&10&2017

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]1962 dh /kkjk 17 ds varxZr lajfpr

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj

ds jkti= esa izdk'kukFkZ

[फा. सं. एल-14014/49/2018-जीृी-II(bZ-44293)]

रामजीलाल मीणा, ऄवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2026

S.O. 92.—In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, Anil Nathuram Sawant, Deputy

Collector (Retired), authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification

S.O.3719 (E) dated 4th Aug, 2022 (published in the Gazette of India on 6th Aug, 2022) under Section 2(a) of the

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for laying Ethane Pipeline by M/s Reliance Ethane Pipeline Limited (REPL) in the

State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/s REPL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been

vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4

of the Schedule annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in District Palghar in the State of

Maharashtra.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

563

SCHEDULE

Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Dahanu

District : Palghar

State : Maharashtra

Sl.

No.

Village

S.O. No. and Date of Notification under sub-

section (1) & (4) of Section 6

Date of Termination

of Operation

Dapchari

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Bramhanwadi

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-10-2017

Pardi

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Punjave

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

28-01-2023

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

28-01-2023

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

Saswand

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

28-01-2023

138 (E)

Date

28-12-2022

28-01-2023

Chinchale

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

25-07-2024

3393(E)

Date

27-10-2016

25-07-2024

1609(E)

Date

12-04-2018

25-07-2024

2528 (E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

Dhanivari

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

1836(E)

Date

01-05-2018

31-10-2017

Devur

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Dahigaon

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Avdhani

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Vivalvedhe

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

1609(E)

Date

12-04-2018

31-10-2017

Charoti

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Bharad

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Ghol

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Kolhan

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Tawe

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Palghar

District : Palghar

State : Maharashtra

Barhanpur

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

Somate

2771(E)

Date

30-09-2015

31-10-2017

3393(E)

Date

27-10-2016

31-10-2017

Published in the Official Gazette of India under Rule 4 of the P&MP (ARUL) Rules 1963, framed under Section 17 of

P&MP (ARUL) Act, 1962

[F. No. L-14014/49/2018-GP-II(E-44293)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA, Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 15 जनवरी, 2026

का.अ. 93.—isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]

1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ ds fu;e 2 ¼d½ ds varxZr eSllZ fjyk;al bZFksu ikbiykbu fyfeVsM ¼vkj-bZ-ih-,y½ ds

564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

}kjk egkjk’V jkT; esa bZFksu ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkus gsrq l{ke izkf/kdkjh ds —R;ksa dk fuoZgu djus ds fy,]

Hkkjr ljdkj ds isVªksfy;e vkSj izk—frd xSl ea=ky; dh] Hkkjr ds jkti= fnukad 6 vxLr] 2022 dks

izdkf”kr vf/klwpuk dk-vk- 3719 ¼v½ fnukad 4 vxLr] 2022 }kjk izkf/k—r] esSa] vfuy ukFkwjke lkoar] mi

lekgrkZ ¼lsokfuo`Rr½] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;ekoyh]

1963 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds uhps nh xbZ ifjHkk"kk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa ds vuqikyu esa] eSllZ

vkj-bZ-ih-,y-] ftlesa ;FkkfLFkr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ml {ks= esa

ikbiykbu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] ds ijke”kZ ls layXu vuqlwph ds LrEHk 4 esa egkjk’Vª jkT; ds ftyk jk;xM

esa izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[ksa ?kksf’kr djrk gw¡A

ikyhcqnzqd

393¼v½

fnukad

27&01&2016

27&01&2023

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

fHkyoys

393¼v½

fnukad

27&01&2016

27&01&2023

1752¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

okoa<y

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

25&07&2024

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

25&07&2024

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

25&07&2024

2530¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

dka<jksyh rQsZ ou[ky

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

27&01&2023

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

27&01&2023

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

vkljs

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

27&01&2023

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

27&01&2023

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

/kkj.kh

1085¼v½

fnukad

10&03&2016

31&03&2018

2208¼v½

fnukad

21&06&2016

31&03&2018

1748¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

ektxkao

1085¼v½

fnukad

10&03&2016

27&01&2023

2208¼v½

fnukad

21&06&2016

27&01&2023

1746¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

1748¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

ikSan

393¼v½

fnukad

27&01&2016

31&03&2018

1745¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

31&03&2018

ekMi

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

25&07&2024

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

25&07&2024

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

25&07&2024

4046¼v½

fnukad

17&08&2018

25&07&2024

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

565

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

25&07&2024

2532¼v½

fnukad

25&06&2024

25&07&2024

[kjlqaMh

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

27&01&2023

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

27&01&2023

4046¼v½

fnukad

17&08&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

gksjkGs

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

27&01&2023

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

27&01&2023

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

1749¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

1751¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

vkiVh

393¼v½

fnukad

27&01&2016

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

xksjB.k [kqnZ

393¼v½

fnukad

27&01&2016

18&05&2023

2113¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2023

18&05&2023

Lokyh

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

27&01&2023

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

27&01&2023

6145¼v½

fnukad

27&12&2022

27&01&2023

uanuikMk

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

30&04&2018

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

30&04&2018

tkafHkoyh

1209¼v½

fnukad

21&03&2016

30&04&2018

1396¼v½

fnukad

07&04&2016

30&04&2018

1747¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

30&04&2018

1752¼v½

fnukad

18&04&2018

30&04&2018

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e]1962 dh /kkjk 17 ds varxZr lajfpr

isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe es mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj

ds jkti= esa izdk'kukFkZ

[Qk-la- ,y--14014/49/2018-th-ih-&II(bZ%&44293)]

jketh yky ehuk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2026

S.O. 93.—In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 below sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum

and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Lands) Rules, 1963, I, Anil Nathuram Sawant, Deputy

Collector (Retired), authorized by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification

S.O.3719 (E) dated 4th Aug, 2022 (published in the Gazette of India on 6th Aug, 2022) under Section 2(a) of the

Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) to perform the

functions of Competent Authority for laying Ethane Pipeline by M/s Reliance Ethane Pipeline Limited (REPL) in the

State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/s REPL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been

vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates, mentioned in Column 4

of the Schedule annexed herewith, as the dates of Termination of Operations in District Raigad in the State

of Maharashtra.

SCHEDULE

Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Khalapur

District : Raigad

State : Maharashtra

Sl.

Village

S.O. No. and Date of Notification under

Date of Termination

566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

No.

sub-section (1) & (4) of Section 6

of Operation

Palibudruk

393(E)

Date

27-01-2016

27-01-2023

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Bhilvale

393(E)

Date

27-01-2016

27-01-2023

1752(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Vavandhal

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

25-07-2024

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

25-07-2024

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

25-07-2024

2530(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

Kandhroli Tarf Vankhal

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

27-01-2023

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

27-01-2023

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Asare

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

27-01-2023

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

27-01-2023

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Dharni

1085(E)

Date

10-03-2016

31-03-2018

2208(E)

Date

21-06-2016

31-03-2018

1748(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

Majgaon

1085(E)

Date

10-03-2016

27-01-2023

2208(E)

Date

21-06-2016

27-01-2023

1746(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

1748(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Paund

393(E)

Date

27-01-2016

31-03-2018

1745(E)

Date

18-04-2018

31-03-2018

Madap

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

25-07-2024

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

25-07-2024

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

25-07-2024

4046(E)

Date

17-08-2018

25-07-2024

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

25-07-2024

2532(E)

Date

25-06-2024

25-07-2024

Kharsundi

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

27-01-2023

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

27-01-2023

4046(E)

Date

17-08-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Horale

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

27-01-2023

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

27-01-2023

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

1749(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

1751(E)

Date

18-04-2018

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Apti

393(E)

Date

27-01-2016

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Gorthan Khurd

393(E)

Date

27-01-2016

18-05-2023

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

567

2113(E)

Date

18-04-2023

18-05-2023

Swali

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

27-01-2023

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

27-01-2023

6145(E)

Date

27-12-2022

27-01-2023

Nandanpada

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

30-04-2018

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

30-04-2018

Jambhivali

1209(E)

Date

21-03-2016

30-04-2018

1396(E)

Date

07-04-2016

30-04-2018

1747(E)

Date

18-04-2018

30-04-2018

1752(E)

Date

18-04-2018

30-04-2018

Published in the Official Gazette of India under Rule 4 of the P&MP (ARUL) Rules 1963, framed under Section 17 of

P&MP (ARUL) Act, 1962

[F. No. L-14014/49/2018-GP-II(E-44293)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA , Under Secy.

नइ ददल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2026

का.अ. 94.—ददनांक 09.05.2024 को भारत के ऄसाधारण राजृत्र में प्रकाजित ददनांक 09.05.2024 की

भारत सरकार की ऄजधसूचना सं्‍या का.अ. 1971(ऄ) के अंजिक संिोधन और ृेरोजलयम और खजनज

ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में प्रयोक्ता के ऄजधकार का ऄजडन) ऄजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (आसमें आसके बाद ईक्त ऄजधजनयम

कहा गया हज) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के ऄनुसरण में भारत सरकार एतदद्वारा, जबहार राज्य में मजससड गेल (आंजडया)

जलजमटेड की सभी ृाआृलाआन ृररयोजनाओं के जलए ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाआृलाआन (भूजम में प्रयोक्ता के ऄजधकार का

ऄजडन) ऄजधजनयम, 1962 के तहत श्री राघवेन्र प्रताृ ससह, भूजम सुधारईृ समाहताड,ृटनासदर,जबहारसरकार को

श्रीसुनील कुमार झा,ईृ जवकास अयुक्त (सेवाजनवृत्त), जबहार सरकार के स्ट्थान ृरऄजतररक्त प्रभार केअधारृर, सक्षम

प्राजधकारी के कायो का जनवडहन करने के जलये प्राजधकृत करती हज I

2. यह ऄजधसूचना आसके जारी होने की जतजथ से प्रभावी होगी।

[Qk- la- ,y--14014/101/2017-th-ih-&II(bZ%&49077)]

jketh yky ehuk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2026

S.O. 94.—In partial modification of Government of India notification no. S.O. 1971(E) dated 09.05.2024

published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India dated 09.05.2014 and in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called

the said Act), the Government of India hereby authorizes Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Land ReformDeputy

Collector, Patna Sadar, Government of Bihar in place of Shri Sunil Kumar Jha, Deputy Development Commissioner

(Retired), Government of Biharto perform the functions of Competent Authority under the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, on additional charge basis for all Pipeline Projects of

M/s GAIL (India) Limited in the State of Bihar.

2. This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. L-14014/101/2017-GP-II(E:-49077)]

RAMJI LAL MEENA , Under Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नइ ददल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2026

का.अ. 95.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

सेंरल बैंक ऑफ आंजडया 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; ua 2

ds iapkV (a06/2017) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं.एल-12025/01/2026-अइ.अर.(बी-I)-30]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2026

S.O. 95.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.06/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.2

Ahmednagar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of

India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-30]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE SECOND LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR.

(Before Abhijeet G. Deshmukh, Presiding Officer)

Reference (I.D.A.) No. 06 / 2017.

(CNR – MHLC-160000672017)

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, 173,

Tilak Road,

Ahmednagar – 414001.

… First party.

VERSUS

Balasaheb Baban Tilekar,

Post Shamsherpur,

Tal. Akole, Ahmednagar.

… Second party.

APPEARANCE :- Smt. T.T. Kakad, Ld. Adv. for the first party.

Shri. K.Y. Modgekar, Ld. Advocate for the second party.

AWARD

(Dated : 31/08/2024)

The present reference is filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication of the dispute between

the parties who are referred as first party (the employer) and second party (the employee) accordingly.

The case of the second party – workman as per his statement of claim Exh. U-1 is that the first party i.e. the

Central Bank of India is a nationalized bank with hundreds of branches across the country and having thousands of

employees working in it. There are independent Service Rules for the employees of the first party Bank. As per the

said Service Rules, the first party Bank is required to allow permanency to the workers who had worked for 60 days,

and at present, the workers who have worked for 45 days, must be allowed permanency. The work of Sweeper is

essential and that of permanent nature. It is further contended by the second party that he worked as a Sweeper in

Samsherpur Branch since January-1999 on daily wages. He was initially paid Rs. 20/- on vouchers. Appointment

letter and pay slips were not given to the daily wage workers. The second party was illegally terminated

w.e.f. 30.06.2001. His entire service was continuous and clean. He is eligible for permanency in service as per the

Service Rules.

It is further contended by the second party that advertisements are published from time to time by the first

party Bank for recruitment. Temporary and daily wage employees of the first party bank were only required to apply

at the time of these advertisements. Temporary and casual employees are also entitled to apply for permanent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

569

appointment, if the concerned employees possess the requisite qualification i.e. caste category. The first party bank

has permanent staff of Sweepers and, pay, leave, vacations and other benefits are provided as per Service Rules to

them. However, daily wage workers and temporary workers are paid nominal wages. There is no difference between

the work of permanent Sweeper and daily wage Sweeper.

It is further contended by the second party workman that, he raised the dispute of his oral termination dated

30.06.2001, and hence, the Manager allowed him to resume on duty at Samsherpur Branch w.e.f. 22.11.2011. His

entire service from 22.11.2011 to 31.07.2015 is continuous and clean. He has rendered 240 of continuous service in

the preceding 12 months prior to his oral termination dated 01.08.2015. Show cause notice or charge sheet was not

issued to the second party workman. Departmental enquiry was also not conducted against him. Seniority list was also

not published by the first party. His juniors are still in service with the first party. His last pay is Rs. 100/- per day. The

first party paid his wages on vouchers during his service tenure. He was terminated illegally without following due

process of law.

It is further contended by the second party workman that workers are not paid equal pay for equal work.

After his termination, the second party workman failed to get the employment, despite several attempts for getting

employment. Hence, it is prayed to declare the oral termination of the second party dated 01.08.2015 as illegal,

improper, contrary to natural justice, and direct the first party to reinstate him in service along with continuity and full

back wages.

The first party appeared and resisted the statement of claim by filing written statement at Exh. C-7. All the

contentions of the second party in the statement of claim are denied by the first party. It is contended by the first party

that the statement of claim is not true and correct. No cause of action has arisen for filing the present dispute. There is

no employer-employee relationship between the second party and the first party. The second party has never worked

as a temporary or permanent worker with the first party. Recruitment of all the posts of the first party is done through

advertisement and examination. There is no Service Rules regarding permanency of a workman who has served /

worked for 60 days or 45 days. The first party publishes regular advertisement for recruitment of employees as per

requirement. The said advertisement mentions the qualification for each post, and any eligible person can apply for

that post as per the procedure given in the advertisement. Candidates who qualify in the examination are recruited as

per the merit list. The second party has not participated in any recruitment process and has not been selected as its

employee. The second party was called only as and when the work is available. The second party himself stopped

doing work with the first party. Hence, claim of the second party deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the first party

prayed to answer the reference in negative.

The issues framed by my learned Predecessor, along with the findings thereon and the reasons therefor are as

under :-

Sr. No.

Issues

Findings

Does the second party (workman) prove that the first party has illegally and

improperly terminated his services vide order dated 01.08.2015, violating the

statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Yes.

Whether the second party (workman) is entitled for the relief of reinstatement

in service with full back wages and continuity of services w.e.f. 01.08.2015?

No. But, entitled for

compensation.

What Award?

As per final award.

REASONS

As to issue Nos. 1 to 3:-

In support of his contentions, the second party workman has filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief at

Exh. U-13, and has reiterated all the contentions of his statement of claim. The second party has filed documents on

record along with lists of documents at Exh. U-15 viz; the certificate issued by the first party dated 11.09.2015, copy

of correspondence letter dated 02.02.2002, at Exh. U-18, copy of letter dated 05.07.2021, at Exh. U-22, copy of

agreement dated 09.08.2012, copies of two letters dated 14.08.2012, copy of Union‘s letter dated 31.07.2023, at Exh.

U-28, copy of order dated 16.04.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8130 / 2024 of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

The second party has also filed documents on record along with lists at Exh. U-25, U-12 and Exh. U-20.

On the contrary, the first party has filed affidavit of examination-in-chief of Mr. Rajesh Uttamrao Gavit,

570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Branch Manager of the first party, and have filed documents along with the list at Exh. C-17 viz; copy of Rules of

Record Maintenance of the Bank (Updated up to Dec-2022).

10.

The facts admitted by the second party in his cross-examination are as under :-

Before employing him, his interview was not conducted by the first party bank.

Appointment letter was not given to him in the year, 1999. There is no written agreement of service in

between the first party and himself.

He was working on daily wage basis with the first party.

At the time of the recruitment after advertisement, exemption / facility is given to the daily wage workers.

However, daily wage workers were required to apply as per the advertisement, and after conducting written and oral

tests, the eligible candidates were recruited.

The first party bank had published an advertisement in the year 2013. (He cannot say whether the said

advertisement got cancelled or not.)

Daily wage workers have no right to sign on muster-roll.

He was allotted the work as per availability.

He had no right to perform written work in record of the first party bank.

His brother is working with the first party bank, and previously his brother was working at Shamsherpur

Branch of the first party bank.

10)

Peon Notebook ¼pijklh ogh½ is a property of the first party bank.

11.

The facts admitted by the witness of the first party Mr. Rajesh Uttamrao Gavit, Branch Manager in his cross-

examination are as under :-

The first service tenure of the second party as daily wage worker was from January-1999 to 30.06.2001, and

the second service tenure was from 22.11.2011 to 31.07.2015.

At present, there are three employees working at Shamsherpur Branch including one Officer, one Clerk, and

himself (the witness).

Excluding these three employees, Mr. Vijay Mengale and Sharifa Shaikh are called as and when the work is

available.

He cannot say about the mode of payment (wages) of the second party.

Vouchers are destroyed after every 10 years. Entry of vouchers is available in the Cash Book. A register is

maintained about the destroyed record.

After Advertisement, Examination and Interview are conducted for recruitment on permanent posts. Vacant

post is necessary for recruitment process.

Special campaign was run by the Head Office of the first party to allow permanency to the daily wage

workers, and eligible workers were made permanent.

Timing of the Branch of the bank is from 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m., and cleanliness is necessary for the bank.

Vouchers are the only evidence to show the payment of the second party workman. Expenditures are shown

in the Cash Books.

12.

Having regard to all these oral as well as documentary evidence on record, and after perusal of Statement of

Claim and Written Statement, the factual position of the case is summarized as under :-

The second party workman has worked on daily wages basis with the first party bank for a period from

January-1999 to 30.06.2001, and thereafter, from 22.11.2011 to 31.07.2015.

The second party workman was not appointed by any written order or by adopting recruitment process.

The second party workman had no right to sign on muster-roll.

Payment (wages) of the second party workman was drawn on vouchers.

Lastly, the Second party workman was getting Rs. 100/- per day as wages.

Vouchers are destroyed after 10 years.

Entries of vouchers are available in cash books.

After the alleged termination of the second party, two other persons (employees) were called for work of

cleanliness in the first party bank.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

571

The second party workman has been terminated orally without issuing any notice or charge-sheet or without

conducting any enquiry.

13.

In cross-examination of the second party, nothing is come on record to disbelieve the contentions of the

second party that he was worked for more than 240 days in 12 months preceding his oral termination. Moreover,

witness of the first party has admitted in his cross-examination that the entries of vouchers were available in the Cash

books. In this situation, the first party could have filed copies of the Cash Books on record to show that the second

party has worked or not for more than 240 days in 12 months preceding his termination. The first party has failed to

file any document on record to show that the second party has not worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12

months of his termination. The first party has only filed its Rules regarding maintenance of its record.

14.

The copies of the Cash Book are expected to be in custody of the first party, and it was for the first party to

produce the same. In such circumstances, non-production of the Cash Books by the first party leads to drawn adverse

inference that if the same had been produced, it would have supported to the contentions of the second party.

Moreover, there is no contentions of the first party that it is ready to get the second party resumed on duty. Therefore,

contentions of the second party that he was orally terminated, can be accepted as proved.

15.

The first party failed to produce Cash Book or any other document disclosing that the second party did not

work with it 240 days preceding his alleged oral termination dated 01.08.2015. Moreover, perusal of documents filed

by the second party along with the list at Exh. U-12, specifically the documents at Sr. Nos. 9 and 10, clearly disclose

that the second party workman had worked for more than 240 days in 12 months preceding his oral termination dated

30.06.2001. As per the said documents, details of working days of the second party for the preceding 12 months are

as under :-

Sr. No.

Month and years.

Working Days.

July – 2000.

August – 2000.

September – 2000.

October – 2000.

November – 2000.

December – 2000.

January – 2001.

February – 2001.

March – 2001.

April – 2001.

May – 2001.

June – 2001.

Total :-

274.

16.

It is also contention of the second party workman that the daily wage workers who had worked for more than

65 or 45 days, were made permanent in service. However, there is noting on record to establish the said alleged fact.

The second party failed to prove the said alleged fact by adducing oral or documentary evidence.

17.

It appears that the first party had conducted recruitment process during the period of daily wage service of

the second party. However, nothing is available to disclose that the second party participated and got selected in the

said recruitment process. Thus, it can not be kept out of consideration that the second party had opportunity to

participate in the recruitment process through a regular mode.

18.

Now, turning towards the legal aspects involved in the case, it is necessary to reproduce relevant Section of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is as under :-

―Section 25-F.

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

572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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.‖

19.

Learned Advocate on behalf of the second party workman has relied upon the following case laws :-

H.D. Singh V/s. Reserve Bank of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 6417/NL/1983 dated 10.09.1985. In

the said case, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed as under :-

―13. We hold that the appellant is entitled to succeed. We set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal and hold

that the striking off the name of the appellant from List II amounted to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the

Act and was in violation of Section 25-F. We direct the first respondent-bank to enlist the appellant as a regular

employee, as Tikke Mazdoor, to reinstate him and pay him his back wages up-to-date. The appeal is allowed

with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000.‖

Trade-Wings Limited V/s. Prabhakar Dattararam Phodkar of Bombay and Ors, reported in 1992

LR (1) 480. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court observed as under :-

―10. - - - - - - - - -. We have then the evidence of Madhav Narayan Nair, Administrative Officer of the

petitioners. He has also deposed that the seniority list displayed on 11th February, 1985 was in respect of

Junior Assistants in the Accounts Department. Since the list which was displayed was only in respect. of the

Junior Assistants in the Accounts Department, the same would not comply with the mandatory requirement of

Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. Rule

81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules enjoins upon the employer before effecting retrenchment to

prepare a list of workmen in the particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated arranged

according to the seniority or their service in that category. The object of the Rule is apparent. It is to ensure the

due compliance of Section 250 i.e. last come first go. In the present case what has been done is a display of

seniority list only of the Accounts Department and not in respect of Junior Assistants of the other departments

of the petitioner Company. The provisions of Rule 81 are mandatory and, therefore, breach of the same would

render the retrenchment invalid. The order of retrenchment of Respondents No. 1 to 8 will, therefore, have to

be quashed.

11.

There is yet another ground on which the impugned order of retrenchment deserves to be quashed.

It is common ground that while effecting the impugned retrenchment, the petitioners have paid retrenchment

compensation calculated on the basis of the monthly wages for 30 days and not 26 days. It is contended on

behalf of the retrenched workers that this amounts to short payment which is equivalent to no payment and

hence the impugned retrenchment is invalid as having been made with undue haste and not in good faith.‖

Umesh Saxena V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and others, reported in 1993 FLR (66) 566. In

the said case, the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court observed as under :-

―11. Provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act were, therefore, necessarily to be followed by the

employer before issuance of the order dated 16.7.82. The petitioner was retrenched and his retrenchment was

made without following the mandate contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. That being so,

the retrenchment of the petitioner is void and cannot be supported in law.‖

Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Secondary Education, Nagpur and

another V/s. Mohd. Naim s/o Abdul Rahim, reported in 2009 (1) Bom. LC 453 (Bom). In the said case, the Hon‘ble

Bombay High Court observed as under :-

―11. It therefore follows that the mode or manner of entry into service is one of the relevant factors to be

considered here and distinction between cases of prayer for regularisation & reinstatement being made earlier

is now not available after the constitutional bench verdict of Hon. Apex Court in case of Secretary, State of

Karnataka .vrs. Umadevi (supra). In public employment therefore mere violation of S. 25F or S.25G or S.25H

by itself may not be sufficient to sustain reinstatement if employment is not secured in accordance with relevant

rules for recruitment or Art. 14 of the Constitution Of India.‖

However, in the said case, it has also been observed that -

―But then if it is proved by the complainant/employee that after terminating him in violation of S.25F or

without publishing seniority list as required by the Rule 77 or 81 of Industrial Dispute Rules (Central or State),

the work continued or his juniors were retained in service, and he could have performed work had he not been

terminated, the grant of relief of reinstatement is justified.‖

Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel V/s. Municipal Council, Narkhed, Civil Appeal No. 6188 of 2019, arising out

of SLP (C) No. 8112 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed as under :-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

573

―12. In the present case the first inquiry resulted in a report which came to the conclusion that the charge of

misconduct was not substantiated. Upon finding that the convening of a fresh inquiry without recording

reasons was contrary to law, the High Court would have ordinarily granted liberty to the Municipal Council to

take a fresh decision after due notice to the appellant. Such a course of action was, however, rendered

impracticable by supervening events. The writ petition instituted by the appellant before the High Court in

1996 remained pending for nearly eighteen years. The appellant had been removed from service on 29 June

1996. Considering the lapse of time, reopening the proceedings would not be expedient in the interest of justice

particularly when the appellant had, in the meantime, attained the age of superannuation in 2005. Relegating

the appellant to a protracted course of action by restoring the proceedings before the disciplinary authority

would also not be fair and proper after a lapse of nearly fourteen years since his retirement.

13. Having due regard to the principles which have been enunciated in Deepali Surwase by this Court, the

High Court was not, in our view, justified in denying the back-wages to the appellant altogether. Bearing in

mind the circumstances which have been noted above, a lumpsum compensation should be directed to be

paid.‖

Samishta Dube V/s. City Board, Etawah & Another, reported in 1999 CLR 460. In the said case, the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court observed as under :-

―9. It is true that the rule of `first come, last go' in section 6-P could be deviated from by an employer because

the section uses the word `ordinarily'. It is, therefore, permissible for the employer to deviate from the rule in

cases of lack of efficiency or loss of confidence etc., as held in M/s. Swadesamitran Limited, Madras v. Their

Workmen, [1960] 3 SCR 144. But the burden will then be on the employer to justify the deviation. No such

attempt has been made in the present case. Hence, it is clear that there is clear violation of Section 6-P of

the U.P. Act.‖

General Manager, Telecom, Nagpur and others V/s. Naresh Brijlal Charote, reported in 2001 LAB I.C.

2127. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court observed as under :-

―Now, if this test is applied to the present case, it can very well be said that respondent No. 1, who was

appointed as a part-time sweeper and was required to do manual and unskilled work is a 'workman' within the

meaning assigned to the said terms in the Act and as he worked for more than 240 days in a year, the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act are applicable to the case in hand and as neither any notice, as

contemplated under Section 25F of the Act, was served upon the respondent No. 1 nor he was paid

compensation in lieu of the said notice, nor was paid retrenchment compensation, it cannot be said that the

provisions of Section 25F of the Act were duly complied with. It has been time and again held by this Court as

well as by the Apex Court that the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act would

render the termination of service void ab initio. I am fortified in this view by a decision of the Apex Court in

the case in Mohanlal v. Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd., (1981) 3 SCC 225 : (1981)

Lab IC 806). ‖

Gauri Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 LLR 785. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court observed as under :-

―15. Therefore, in view of the above said case, the learned single Judge in exercise of its powers under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India erroneously interfered with the award of reinstatement and

future salary from the date of award till date of reinstatement as rightly passed by the Labour Court recording

valid and cogent reasons in answer to the points of dispute holding that the workman has worked from

1.1.1987 to 1.4.1992 and that non-compliance of the mandatory requirements under Sections 25F, 25G and

25H of the Act by the respondent-Department rendered its action of termination of the services of the workman

as void ab initio in law and instead the High Court erroneously awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- in

lieu of reinstatement. - - - - - - - - - .‖

Bright Export Limited v/s. Central Board of Trustee, EPF Organisation, reported in 2016 LLR 487. In the

said case, the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court observed as under :-

―When a particular fact is within the special knowledge of the opposite party, the burden to prove the same lies

upon the opposite party in terms of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even if the same has been

pleaded by other party.‖

10)

Sanjay Kumar s/o Surendra Kumar Sharma V/s. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam,

reported in 2010 LLR 1065. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as under :-

―If the party possesses best evidence and is not produced before the Court, an adverse inference can be

drawn under the Evidence Act against such a party.‖

11)

Vilas Agaji Pawar and others V/s. The Union of India Additional Solicitor General and Others, Writ

Petition No. 379 of 2024 dated 12^th January, 2024. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court observed as

574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under :-

―19. It is, thus, crystal clear that the OTM was meant only for those Safai Karmacharis or Sub-Staff, who were

already working with the Bank. These directions of the Honourable Supreme Court read with the law laid

down in Umadevi (supra), lead to a sine-qua-non that the only option available for the Bank was to ensure

that the long serving employees as like the Petitioners at it's various establishments and branches in India,

were considered for the OTM.‖

12)

Chief Conservator of Forests, Pune (T) and another, V/s. Janabai Sonaba Sarpale, reported in 2019 (1)

Bom.LC 18. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court has observed as under :-

―25. The Apex Court in MSRTC (supra) has clearly observed that the issue relating to unfair labour practices

was neither referred nor considered or decided in Uma Devi's case and therefore, the ruling in., Uma Devi

(supra) does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under section 30 read with

section 32 of the MRTUP and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victim of unfair

labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV. The Apex Court in fact, held that Uma

Devi (supra) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing

appropriate order under section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once a case of unfair labour practice on the

part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established.‖

13)

K.V. Durga Prasad & Ors. V/s. Sri. Durgamalleshwara Swami Vari Devasthanam Vijayawada & Ors.,

reported in 1996 LLR 329. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Andhra Preadesh High Court observed as under :-

― - - - - - - - - - -. Thus, I find that the impugned termination orders are in violation of principles of natural

justice. Without going to the respective merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this writ petition on the

ground of contravention of principles of natural justice.‖

14)

Spentex Industrial Limited V/s. Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur and others, reported in 2011 (131)

FLR 843. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur observed as under :-

―6. - - - - - - - - -. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note that the Labour Court had passed an order on

09/03/2009 directing the respondent No. 3 to file a reply to the Enquiry Officer's Report. The next two days i.e.

10th and 11th of March, 2009 were holidays and the respondent No. 3 became aware of the order only on

12/03/2009. But before he could file a reply, the petitioner-Company hurriedly issued the dismissal order on

13/03/2009, which was served on the respondent No. 3 on 17/03/2009. It is further required to be noted that

the Complaint was pending and the respondent No. 3 had sought to amend the Complaint so as to incorporate

a challenge to the dismissal order and had also filed an application for interim relief in respect of the said

dismissal order. Both the Courts below in the said fact situation were right in coming to the conclusion that the

petitioner-Company had sought to avoid filing its reply so that a covert action of dismissal could be taken

against the respondent No. 3. Though, it is debatable whether the principles applicable in respect of Section 33

of the Industrial Disputes Act, would stricto sensu apply to the proceedings under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act,

1971, but the least that was expected from the petitioner-Company was that when the parties were before the

Court and when an application for interim relief was pending, the petitioner-Company ought to have informed

the Court of the action it proposes to take based on the enquiry officer's report. Having not done so, in my

view, the Courts below were right in protecting the services of the respondent No. 3 pending the Complaint.

The facts of the present case are such that the discretion exercised by the Courts below in granting the interim

relief cannot be faulted with.‖

20.

Learned Advocate on behalf of the first party bank has relied upon the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka

and Ors. V/s. Umadevi and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806. In the said case, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has

observed as under:-

― - - - - - - - - . It has also led to persons who get employed, without the following of a regular procedure or

even through the backdoor or on daily wages, approaching the Courts, seeking directions to make them

permanent in their posts and to prevent to regular recruitment to the concerned posts. - - - - - - - - - . It is time,

that Courts desist from issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment at the instance of such

persons and from issuing directions for continuance of those who have not secured regular appointments as per

procedure established. The passing of orders for continuance, tends to defeat the very Constitutional scheme of

public employment. - - - - - - - - -.‖

Thus, it becomes clear from the observation of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the said case that the

persons who did not enter the services through any open competition or selection process as required by the law, had

no right to the post held by them or to be continued in service.

21.

Having regard to all the legal as well as factual aspects involved in the matter as discussed herein above, and

after giving thoughtful consideration to the observations of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and the Hon‘ble High Courts

in the above referred case laws, this Court is of the view that the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Acts are

applicable to the first party, and the second party has completed 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his oral

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 7, 2026/माध 18, 1947

575

terminations dated 30.06.2001 and dated 01.08.2015 and his terminations are without following mandatory provisions

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is illegal and improper termination violating the statutory provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Resultantly, issue No. 1 is answered affirmatively.

22.

Considering the entire factual and admitted position of the present case as well as the provisions of law,

reinstatement of the second party workman with the first party will not be appropriate. Instead of reinstatement,

awarding a reasonable lump-sum amount of compensation to the second party workman would be just and

appropriate. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration last designation, last drawn

wages, service tenure and age of the second party workman, in my considered view, awarding lump-sum

compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the second party workman would meet the ends of justice. Resultantly, issue

No. 2 is answered accordingly. For issue No. 3, the following Award is passed.

AWARD

1. The reference is answered partly affirmative as under :-

It is declared that the oral termination of the second party dated 30.06.2001 is illegal and improper.

B. The second party workman is entitled for lump-sum compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/-.

C. The first party is directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the second party workman.

D. The first party is hereby directed to comply the order within two months from the date of publication of the

Award.

E. If the first party failed to comply the order within time, then the second party workman is entitled to simple

interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/-, from the date of this Award till

its actual realization.

3. Four copies of this Award be sent to Regional Labour Commissioner, office of the Regional Labour

Commissioner, 1, Kaul Building, Shankar Seth Road, Gururnanak Nagar, Pune – 411002 for publication and

further necessary action.

4. No order as to costs.

A.G. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer & Judge

नइ ददल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2026

का.अ. 96.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

सेंरल बैंक ऑफ आंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjaksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua 2

ds iapkV (a10/2017) izdkf'kr djrh gSA

[सं.एल-12025/01/2026-अइ.अर.(बी-I)-31]

सलोनी, ईृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2026

S.O. 96.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 10/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No.2 Ahmednagar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-31]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE SECOND LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR.

(Before Abhijeet G. Deshmukh, Presiding Officer)

Reference (I.D.A.) No. 10 / 2017.

(CNR – MHLC-160002022017)

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office,

576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 7, 2026/MAGHA 18, 1947

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Aurangabad 5/5/72,

New Usmanpura,

Aurangabad – 431005.

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Kolhar Budruk Branch,

Po. Kolhar Budruk, Tq. Rahata,

Dist. Ahmednagar.

… First party.

VERSUS

Keru Suryabhan Borude,

Age : 39 years, Occu. : Nil,

At Kolhar Budruk, Po. Rahata,

Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.