940 GI/2026
(811)
रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
xxxGIDHxxx
xxxGIDExxx
प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप् ताजहक
WEEKLY
सं. 6]
नई दिल् ली, फरवरी 15—फरवरी 21, 2026, िजनवार/माघ 26—फाल् गुन 2, 1947
No. 6]
NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 15— FEBRUARY 21, 2026, SATURDAY/MAGHA 26––PHALGUNA 2, 1947
इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ् सं् या िी जाती हज जजससे दक यह ृृ क संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
जवत्त मंत्रालय
(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 150.—भारतीय जनयाात-आयात बैंक अजिजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की िारा 6 की उृ-िारा (1) के
खंड (ड.) के उृ-खंड (i) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते ुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एति् द्वारा, श्री जसद्धा ा महाजन के स्ट् ान
ृर श्री सुचीन्र जमश्र, जविेष सजचव, वाजिज्य जवभाग को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आिेिों तक भारतीय जनयाात-आयात
बैंक (एजजजम बैंक) के जनिेिक मण्डल मे जनिेिक के ृि ृर नाजमत करती हज।
[फा. सं. 9/1/2022-आईएफ-I]
गोृी ना , अवर सजचव
सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-23022026-270404
CG-DL-W-23022026-270404
812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 150.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 6
of the Export-Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (No. 28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby nominates
Shri Suchindra Misra, Special Secretary, Department of Commerce as Director on the Board of Directors of Export-
Import Bank of India (Exim Bank) vice Shri Siddharth Mahajan, with immediate effect and until further orders.
[F. No. 9/1/2022-IF-I]
GOPI NATH, Under Secy.
जविेि मन्त्रालय
(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 151.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरि में वजिाजनक आिेि।
एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार, फ़रवरी 09, 2026 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवाहन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय जमिनों/ृोस्ट्टों
में सहायक कांसुलर अजिकाररयों के प ृ में इस मंत्रालय के जनम्नजलजखत अजिकाररयों की जनयुजि करता हज:
क्रम सं. अजिकारी का नाम और ृि
जमिन
/
ृोस्ट्ट जजसमें
सहायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के
प ृ में जनयुि दकया गया हज
1
श्री बलवंत ससह जबष्ट,जनजी सहायक
भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, जेद्दा
2
श्री सुभाष चंि ,सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
3
श्री नीरज, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास, ररयाि
4
श्री जप्रयांिु यािव, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
5
श्री अृूवा रस्ट्तोगी, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
6
श्री मुकेि कुमार ससह, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास,सैंरटयागो
7
श्री िीरज कुमार मीिा, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारत के प्रिान कोंसलावास, ृ ा
[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2026(01)]
तरुि कुमार, अवर सजचव [सीृीवी-II]
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
(CPV Division)
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2026
S.O. 151.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned
officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular services
with effect from February 09, 2026:
S.
No
Name & Rank of the Officer
Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant
Consular Officer
1
Mr. Balwant Singh Bisht, Personal Assistant
Consulate General of India, Jeddah
2
Mr. Subhash Chand, Assistant Section Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
813
3
Mr. Neeraj, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Riyadh
4
Mr. Priyanshu Yadav, Assistant Section Officer
5
Mr. Apoorv Rastogi, Assistant Section Officer
6
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Santiago
7
Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Meena, Assistant Section Officer
Consulate General of India, Perth
[F. No. T.4330/01/2026 (01)]
TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy. (CPV-II)
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 152.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजिकारी (िृ एवं फीस) के अजिजनयम, 1948 की िारा 2 के
खंड (क) के अनुसरि में वजिाजनक आिेि।
एति् द्वारा, केंर सरकार, फ़रवरी 11, 2026 से कांसुलर सेवाएं के जनवाहन करने के जलए जविेि में भारतीय
जमिनों
/
ृोस्ट्टों में सहायक कांसुलर अजिकाररयों के प ृ में इस मंत्रालय के
जनम्नजलजखत अजिकाररयों की जनयुजि करता हज:
क्रम सं. अजिकारी का नाम और ृि
जमिन
/
ृोस्ट्ट जजसमें
सहायक कांसुलर अजिकारी के
प ृ में जनयुि दकया गया हज
1
श्री योगेि कुमार िमाा, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास, ररयाि
2
श्री महेि कुमार, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय उच्चायोग, माल्टा
3
श्री स्ट्वाजिक जवश्वास, सहायक अनुभाग अजिकारी
भारतीय िूतावास, ृनामा
[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2026(02)]
तरुि कुमार, अवर सजचव [सीृीवी-II]
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 152.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular
Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints the below mentioned
officials of this Ministry, as Assistant Consular Officers in Indian Missions/Posts abroad to perform Consular services
with effect from February 11, 2026:
S.
No.
Name & Rank of the Officer
Mission/Post wherein appointed as Assistant
Consular Officer
1
Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Riyadh
2
Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Assistant Section Officer
High Commission of India, Malta
3
Mr. Swagnick Biswas, Assistant Section Officer
Embassy of India, Panama
[F. No. T.4330/01/2026 (02)]
TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy. (CPV-II)
814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 153.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मुंबई ृोटा रस्ट्ट 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; eqEcbZ-2, ds iapkV (41/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-31011/02/2017-आई आर(बी- II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2026
S.O. 153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port
Trust and their workmen.
[No. L-31011/02/2017– IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/41 of 2017
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No. 1 M/s. Mumbai Port Trust
The Chairman,
Mumbai Port Trust,
General Admn. Department,
Port House, 2nd Floor,
S. V. Marg,
Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No.2 (Mumbai Port Trust General Workers` Union)
The General Secretary,
Mumbai Port Trust General Workers` Union
Kavarana Building,
1st Floor, 26/4,
P.D‘Mello Road,
Opp. Mangatram Weigh Bridge,
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
815
Wadibunder, Masjid (E),
Mumbai- 400 009,
Mumbai.
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
No appearance.
Workmen
: No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 19-12-2025)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-31011/02/2017 (IR(B-II) dated 19.09.2017. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in imposing penalty of reduction of pay by
one stage for two years to Mr. V.P. Natrajan, Junior Engineer, Gr. III in CME Department, is fair, just and
legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
The case is called out today. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner
is not responding and attending the Court since 22.11.2022 long back. Although, Statement of Claim & Written
Statements have been filed by the parties respectively. The petitioner has also filed his affidavit and his evidence but
the petitioner is not coming to the court to prove the contents of his affidavit as well as the contents of the Statement
of Claim. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. The petitioner is not coming to the
Court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the
petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in imposing penalty of reduction of pay by one
stage for two years to Mr. V.P. Natrajan, Junior Engineer, Gr. III in CME Department, is fair, just and
legal. The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.
Date: 19-12-2025
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 154.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
मुंबई ृोटा रस्ट्ट 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; eqEcbZ-2, ds iapkV (23/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-31011/6/2012-आई आर(बी- II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2026
S.O. 154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port
Trust and their workmen.
[No. L-31011/6/2012– IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/23 of 2013
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No.1 M/s. Mumbai Port Trust
The Chairman,
Mumbai Port Trust,
Mumbai,
Port Bhavan,
S. V. Marg,
Mumbai-I
Mumbai 400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No.2 (Transport & Dock Workers Union)
The President,
Transport & Dock Workers Union
P.D`Mello Bhavan,
P.D`Mello Road,
Carnac Bunder,
Mumbai- 400 038,
Mumbai.
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
No appearance.
Workmen
: No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 19-12-2025)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-31011/6/2012 (IR(B-II) dated 05.03.2013. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“ Whether the action of the Management of Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai withdrawing the 2nd ACP and
recovering the amount paid towards ACP benefit w.e.f. date of ACP shown against each workmen i.e. Mr.
B.M. Yadav & 08 others as per Exhibit-I, is legal, just and proper?” What relief the workmen concerned
are entitled to?”
Sl. No.
Workmen
1
Mr. B. M. Yadav
2
Mr. A. S. Kubal
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
817
3
Mr. G. S. Malandkar
4
Mr. A. V. Bagwe
5
Mr. S. S. Gawde
6
Mr. N. M. Solanki
7
Mr. B. N. Sanaye
8
Mr. G. V. Chavan
9
Mr. S. A. Pimple
2.
The case is called out today. Both parties are absent. Both parties are not responding and attending the Court
since long back. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not coming to the Court since 17.04.2024.
Although, Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively, but no other
evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. The petitioner is not coming to the Court since long back.
It appears that, the petitioner is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner is not
proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the Management of Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai withdrawing the 2nd ACP and
recovering the amount paid towards ACP benefit w.e.f. date of ACP shown against each workmen
i.e. Mr. B. M. Yadav & 08 others as per Exhibit-I, is legal, just and proper. The concerned workmen
are not entitled to any relief.
Date: 19-12-2025
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 155.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र 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; eqEcbZ-2, ds iapkV (9/2022) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/29/2022-आई आर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2026
S.O. 155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 9/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of
Maharashtra and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/29/2022– IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/9 of 2022
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
Party No.1 M/s. Bank of Maharashtra
The Managing Director,
Bank of Maharashtra
Central Office, 1501 Lokmangal,
Shivajinagar,
Pune 411005.
818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No.2 (Mahabank Navnirman Sena)
The President,
Mahabank Navnirman Sena
Yashoda Co-operative Society,
Ranade Road, Vishtar, Dadar
Mumbai- 400 028.
(Bank of Maharashtra Employees Union Kolhapur)
The General Secretary,
Bank of Maharashtra Employees Union Kolhapur
507, D-ward, Sudhakar Chambers,
Opp. to Ganganesh Petrol Pump
Kolhapur - 416012.
APPEARANCES:
Management
:
Mr. T. Vijay Kumar
Advocate
Workmen
: No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 18-12-2025)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-12011/29/2022 (IR(B-II) dated 23.03.2022. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the demand raised by Unions (i) Mahabank Navnirman Sena, Mumbai (Maharashtra) (ii) Bank
of Maharashtra Employees Union, Kolhapur (Maharashtra) to regularize the services of 35 workers (List
enclosed as Annexure -`A`) in the permanent post against Temporary Part-Time Sub Staff from
retrospective date under various branches of Bank of Maharashtra at Goa, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg
region is legal, proper and justified? If yes, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from
which date?”
Sl. No.
Workmen
1
Mr. Laxman Suresh Gawas
2
Mr. Ramdas Baliram Chavan
3
Mr. Amol Shivaji Indap
4
Mr. Shanta Ram Dalvi
5
Mr. Arjun Namdev Dhabolkar
6
Mr. Ragunath Shivaji Sawant
7
Mr. Swapnil Ramdas Jadhav
8
Mr. Chandrakanth Anil Jadhav
9
Mr. Umesh Sitara Cheulkar
10
Mr. Sushil Ramchandra Naringrekar
11
Mr. Akshay Ulhas Mayekar
12
Mr. Gangaram Rajendra Gaonkar
13
Mr. Amol Dasharam Gurav
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
819
14
Mr. Gunaji Sagun Satoskar
15
Mr. Vittal Krishna Jadhav
16
Ms. Sunita Madhu Varak
17
Mr. Sachin Anant Kamble
18
Mr. Srykant Sudam Natekar
19
Mr. Aniket Ajay Zepale
20
Mr. Akshay Purendra Bagkar
21
Mr. Rajesh Shankar Jangam
22
Mr. Dilip Babu Bapardekar
23
Mr. Vikas Banu Mahadkar
24
Mr. Virendra Vasant Shinde
25
Mr. Prathamesh Prakash Nagale
26
Mr. Sushant Mahendra Powar
27
Mr. Sudhir Mahadeo Khedekar
28
Mr. Sachin Narayan Pawar
29
Mr. Chandrakanth Pandurang Chile
30
Mr. Ajay Vidur Sjere
31
Mr. Vishal Kashinath Khedekar
32
Mr. Manoj G. Kalekar
33
Mr. Rajkumar Mahadik
34
Mr. Bhiwaji Kamble
35
Mr. Mandar Ashok Ambekar
2.
The case is called out today. Mr. T. Vijay Kumar the learned counsel for the respondent is present before the
court but no one is present on behalf of the petitioners. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioners are
not responding and attending the Court since long back despite service of notices. No Statement of Claims have been
filed by the petitioners till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioners to prove their claim. The
petitioners are not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioners are not interested to contest the
case furthermore. The claim of the petitioners is not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The demand raised by Unions (i) Mahabank Navnirman Sena, Mumbai (Maharashtra) (ii) Bank of
Maharashtra Employees Union, Kolhapur (Maharashtra) to regularize the services of 35 workers (List
enclosed as Annexure -`A`) in the permanent post against Temporary Part-Time Sub Staff from retrospective
date under various branches of Bank of Maharashtra at Goa, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg region is not legal,
proper and justified. The concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Date: 18-12-2025
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 156.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
एसबीआई इंफ्रा मजनेजमेंट स्ल्यूिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड 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;
eqEcbZ-1
ds
iapkV (17/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आई आर(बी- I)-40]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2026
S.O. 156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 17/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of SBI Infra
Management Soluction Pvt. Ltd, and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-40]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-17 of 2023
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
SBI Infra Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd,
Raheja Chambers, Ground Floor,
Free Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021.
V/s.
Ms. Supriya R. Rane,
302, Shreya Bldg., Shankeshwar Krupa Complex,
Chikanghar, Kalyan(West),
Thane, Maharashtra-421301.
Appearances:
For the first party Management
:
Absent
For the second party workmen
:
Absent
Mumbai, dated the 6th day of January, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. B.ALC© dated 29/09/2022 passed
in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as under:
“Whether Central Government is the appropriate Government Under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 and the Industrial Dispute raised by the applicant Ms. Supriya Rane is maintanable or not?
Whether Ms. Supriya Rane is a workman or not as per the defination of workman under section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the termination of Ms. Supriya Rane is legal, fair and justifiable? If not, what relief she is
entitled to?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any statement of claim/ evidence in
support of his case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration
the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others
1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
821
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:
Since no statement of claim has been filed by the workmen in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the workmen is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 157.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
जेएनृीटी ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ- 1 ds iapkV (04/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आई आर(बी- II)-19]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2026
S.O. 157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 04/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of JNPT and their
workmen.
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR (B-II)-19]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT-04 of 2025
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
1. M/s. Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd,
Dhasakhoshi Khoptate Village,
822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Post Koproli, The Uran,
Raigad-410212.
2. M/s. Prism Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd,
207, 2nd Floor,
Forwarder Build Plot No.5, Sector 1,
Navghar, Talh-Uran,
Raigad-400707.
3. The CE/ Director, Bharat Mumbai Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd.,
The Galaxy Building, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Sheva, Navi Mumbai.
4. The Chairman, JNPT,
Advministrative Building, Sheva,
Navi Mumbai-400 707.
And
The President, Rastriya Mulnivasi Bahujan Karmachar Sangh,
Shevanta Rohidas Gharat Niwas, Shop No.1, Kranti maidan,
A/P Jasai, Uran, Panvel, Raigad-410206.
Appearances:
For the first party Management
:
Absent
For the second party workmen
:
Absent
Mumbai, dated the 6th day of January, 2026.
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. B.ALC©-II/8/(11)/2022-
B-3 dated 3/12/2024 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)
of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether the action of the management I.e. termination of contract workers is legal and justified? If so, then
for what relief the contract workers are entitled to?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any statement of claim/ evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the
Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the
order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a workman
raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file written statement
before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence
to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred
by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K. Raj
Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and
Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the
workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not
necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation
made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519;
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
823
Since no statement of claim has been filed by the union in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 158.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdk
मेससा ओररयन जसजयोररटी स्ल्यूिन प्राइवेट जलजमटेडds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ-1 ds iapkV (08/2024) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आई आर(बी-I)-39]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 9th February, 2026
S.O. 158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 08/2024) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s Orion Security
Solution Pvt. Ltd, and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-39]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,
MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO.CGIT- 08 of 2024
Parties: Employers in relation to the management of
M/s. Orion Security Solution Pvt. Ltd,
No. 5E, 1st Floor, Jungi House, Street No.5,
Shahpur Jat, New Delhi-110049.
And
Shri Suresh Barik,
88/B, Jagula Damara,
Bansada, Bhadrak,
Orissa-756171.
Appearances:
For the first party Management
:
Absent
For the second party workmen
:
Absent
Mumbai, dated the 6th day of January, 2026.
824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. RV-8(22)2021 dated
28/12/2023 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. The terms of reference as per the schedule to the said order are as
under:
“Whether demand of Shri Suresh Barik for wages from April 2020 to March 2021 in which he has not
worked but he was struck in covid lockdown is legal or illegal?”
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any statement of claim/ evidence in support of his
case on affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the
Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must
also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce
evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he
would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38
and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on
behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail
if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519;
Since no statement of claim has been filed by the union in support of his case, the claim is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the union is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.
Award as above.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 159.—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 (a07/2012, lh vkj ua 05/2013 ) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/55/2012-आई आर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07/2012, CR No.05/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of
Karnataka Grameena Bank and their workmen.
[No. L-12012/55/2012- IR (B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
825
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU
DATED
: 22nd JANUARY 2026
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA
Presiding Officer
I D No. 07/2012
I Party
II Party
Sh. H Devaraju,
C/o Hanumantharayappa, Behind Vidya
Samskara Internation Public School,
Machohalli Gate, Magadi Road,
BANGALORE.
1. The General Manager (Personal Wing), Canara
Bank, H O, J C Road, Bangalore -2.
2. Disciplinary
Authority
of
Deputy
General
manager, DA Cell, Canara Bank, C O, No. 86, M
G road, Bangalore – 1.
3. The Branch manager, Canara Bank, Hittanahalli
Branch, Malvalli Taluk, Mandya District.
CR No. 05/2013
I Party
II Party
Sh. H Devaraju,
s/o late Hanumaiah, C/o
Jayaramaiah, Doddahullikatta,
Jiliyalur, Kanchanalli Post,
Durga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk,
Taluk dist. TUMKUR DIST.
The General Manager (P),
Canara Bank,
Circle Office, Bangalore Metro,
No. 86, Spencer‘s Towers, M G Road,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
Appearances
I Party :
Sri G S Rajesh
Advocate
II Party :
Sri P Udaya Shankar Rai
Advocate
CR No. 05/2013
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-12012/55/2012 IR(B-II) dated 01.02.2013 in
exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as ―The Act‖) (14 of 1947) referred the following Industrial
Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank circle Office, Bangalore, Karnataka
represented by its deputy General manager, is justified in awarding the punishment of dismissal from
service w.e.f. 13/08/2002 to Shri H. Devaraju sub Staff? What relief the said workman is entitled to?‖
1.
Initially a Petition is filed under Sec 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 (for brevity
‗the Act‘) by the 1st Party workman / former employee of the Canara Bank who was Dismissed from Service eventual
to a Disciplinary Enquiry held by the II Party on the Charge of misconduct
826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2.
The Petition was registered as ID NO. 07/2012 and the date of hearing was fixed as 13.09.2012. Notices
were issued to both the parties. I Party appeared through his Counsel and II Party through their Counsel P Udaya
Shankar Rai and filed their counter statement on 06.02.2013.
3.
After filing of the Petition and Objection Statement in ID No. 07/2012, this Office has received Central
Reference referred by the Central Government and the same is Registered as CR No. 05/2013 and notices were issued
to both the parties to appear on 18.03.2013. On 01.07.2013 when the matter was called, Counsel for the I party filed a
Memo that since the pleadings have been completed in ID no. 07/2012 and CR no. 05/2013 being identical in nature
and as the same parties are involved, a common trial may be conducted and both matters be disposed off on merit by a
common Award. The same was accepted and the matters were clubbed as per the proceeding dated 01.07.2013.
4.
The I Party in his Petition filed in Industrial Dispute ID No. 07/2012 has pleaded that he was sponsored by
the Employment Exchange, Mandya to work as Daily Wager or coolie with the II Party w.e.f. 17.12.1981 and later
was absorbed as Probationary Peon on 28.04.1987; that he was deputed lastly as Peon at Hittanahalli Branch,
Mandya; that two Gold loans bearing Account No. 58/1999 and 79/1999 were taken by Sri M A Shivashankar and Sri
B V Nagaraju and they were kept in safe locker keys and the keys were in the custody of the Manager; that on
19.04.2001, the Manager who is the custodian of the keys has found that two gold loan packets were missing from the
double key safe locker; the manager did not report the same to the Regional Office and they themselves have traced
those missing articles at the Pawn Brokers M/s. Udaya Ranga Pawn Borkers as having been pledged through one H K
Chandrahasa and One N Nanjunda between 19.04.2001 and 25.04.2001; the II Party conducted investigation and
recorded the statement of the I Party and thereafter dismissed him from service keeping him under suspension on
13.08.2002; that he was victimized to the extent of losing the job and though he had appealed to hierarchy but he
failed; that by wrongly representing himself as an Officer approached the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka in WP
No. 31405/2004 which came to be allowed and the II Party challenged the same in WA No. 4297/2009, the verdict in
which went against him and the I Party preferred SLP no. 12206/2011 which came to be dismissed. As he suffered
from injustice at the hands of the II Party in the Writ Jurisdiction without approaching this court at the first instance,
he filed an Application for Conciliation before the Conciliation Officer and the II Party has raised a contention of res
judicata pursuant to which the Conciliation ended up in failure and hence filed this Petition before this Tribunal
requesting to call for records on the file of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Bangalore No. 7(1)2012-B3; to hold
an enquiry and to make a finding that the investigation and the subsequent enquiry held by the II Party based on the
confession statement of the I Party is not fair and proper; to direct the II Party to reinstate the I party with 50% back
wages and consequential benefits and pass such other orders to meet the ends of justice.
5.
The II Party in its Statement of Objection contended that the I Party himself had chosen to contest the matter
before the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka which involved the same issue, which ultimately reached the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court to attain finality; the punishment order imposed by the II Party is upheld by the highest Court of the
Country and the present claim filed by the I party is badly hit by the principle of res judicata on the count of Doctrine
of Election and requested this tribunal to take up the issue of maintainability of the dispute as preliminary issue before
proceedings into trial; that the dispute raised by the I party is hit by delay and latches; that the I Party joined the
services of the II Party on 29.07.1989 and was confirmed on 29.01.1990; that he was suspended from the service of
the II Party w.e.f. 12.05.2001 in connection with missing of two packets containing Gold Ornaments; that in the initial
investigation he has admitted having unauthroisedly removed two packets of gold ornaments, the one under Gold
Loan No. 58/1999 one Mr. M A Shivashankar containg one pair of Stone Bangles, One Jade bille (Big), Two Jade
billies (Small) and one Paid Kaddi Bangles and Gold Loan No. 79/1999 of Mr. B V Nagaraju containing One three
rows coffee beeja chain and pledged those jewels with the Pawn Brokers M/s. Udayaranga Pawn Brokers, Malavalli
and with Sri Venkatagowda at Hanchipura Village; though explanation was called for he failed to submit reply even
after having acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 09.05.2001 and since the above act amounts to gross
misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3, clause (m) of Canara Bank Service Code, a departmental
enquiry was conducted by the II Party by appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. During the enquiry the I
party admitted the charges unconditionally at the preliminary stage itself. When opportunity was offered to him by the
Enquiry Officer to defend himself or by availing the facility of Defence Representative, he again went on admitting
the charge on his part and requested the Enquiry Officer to dispense with the Enquiry. In the sitting held on
11.03.2002 the documents placed in evidence by the II Party were recorded with the consent of the I Party and at the
stage when he was asked to make his say in the matter, again he confirmed that he is admitting the guilt and allowed
MEx-15, the statement given by him before the Investigating Officer to be accepted in evidence and requested for
dispensing with the enquiry and submitted that he had to incur a lot of expenditure for treatment of his wife and was
hard pressed for money to meet her medical expenses. Based on the admission of the I Party and the material
evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer held the 1st Party as guilty of the Charges leveled against him in his report
dated 13.03.2002 and the Disciplinary Authority ordered punishment of Dismissal from Service and the said order is
upheld by the Appellate Authority; the contention raised by the I Party that there was no corroboration of Charges and
only on the basis of the confession statement, the charges were held as proved is paradoxical and that the punishment
order does not call for any interference and that the punishment imposed is commensurate to the gravity of the
misconduct committed by the I Party and for the reasons prayed rejection of the Petition filed by the I party.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
827
6.
In CR No. 05/2013 no separate Claim Statement is filed by the I Party. Conversely also no counter had to be
submitted by the II Party.
7.
Based on the rival contentions raised by both the parties this court framed the following issues for trail in ID
No. 07/2012 :
1. ―Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the Applicant is fair and proper?
2. ―Whether the dispute is barred by principle of res judicata as contended by the Respondent?
3. Whether the Application is liable for rejection by delay as contended by the Respondent?
4. Whether the Applicant proves that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse?
5. Whether the Applicant proves that he has been victimized and being not gainfully employed after his
dismissal?
6. What order / award ?
From the above, Issues No. 1 and 2 were ordered to heard as preliminary issues as per the proceedings of this
Tribunal dated 04.12.2013.
8.
Accordingly, the II Party has adduced evidence by examining MW 1 and by getting Ex M-1 to M-5 marked
on its side.
9.
The I Party workman has adduced rebuttal evidence by getting himself as examined as WW 1 and got Ex W-
1 to Ex W-3 marked on his side.
10.
Heard the arguments advanced in detail by both sides.
11.
Preliminary Issues No. 1 and 2 : The main argument advanced by the II Party that the issue raised in the
given case has already been heard and decided by the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in WA No.
4297/2009 (S-DIS) as per order dated 24.08.2010 (Ex M-4) by quashing the order passed by the Hon‘ble High Court
of Karnataka in WP No. 31405/2004 (S-DIS) as per judgement dated 25.08.2009 (Ex M-2).
12.
Ex M-1 is the copy of the Writ Petition filed by the I party herein challenging Ex M-12 Order of Dismissal
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 13.08.2002 on the I Party pursuant to Ex M-11 finding of the Enquiry
Officer dated 13.03.2002 and also Ex M-13, the Order of Dismissal of his Appeal by the Appellate Authority dated
24.12.2003. The I Party was put under suspension as per the proceedings of the II Party dated 12.05.2001 and was
furnished with a charge sheet Ex M-6 by the II Party management alleging that while he was working as sub-staff at
Hittanahalli Branch of the II Party from 29.07.1989 till the date of his suspension i.e.,12.05.2001, he has illegally /
unauthoriseldy removed two packets containing Gold Loan Packets found missing One Pair of stone Bangles, One
Jade Bille (Big), Two Jade Billes (Small) and one pair of Kaddi Bangles, pledged by one Mr. M A Shivashankar
under Gold Loan No. 58/1999 and another packet containing one three rose coffee beeja chain from the branch
pertaining to pledged by Mr. B V Nagaraju under Gold Loan No. 79/1999. It is equally alleged that he has pledged the
stolen items viz., One Stone Bangle, One Big Jade Bille and Two Small Jade Bille with M/s. Udayaranga Pawn
Brokers, Malavalli for Rs. 25,000.00 and One three rose chain, one pair of Kaddi Bangles and one Stone Bangle with
Sri Venkate Gowda for Rs. 25,000.00.
13.
In the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer R Guruprasad, Manager, Bedadi Branch, the I Party has admitted
having unauthorisedly removed the above items from the Branch covered under the afore mentioned Gold Loans and
also admitted having taken the staff members of the II Party Bank Hittanahalli Branch to Malavahalli and in retrieving
the Gold Ornaments pledged to the Pawn Brokers to M Nagaraju after conducting detailed enquiry in respect of the
charge put forth by the management through Sri G S Ravi Sudhakar, Officer, Canara Bank as the Presenting Officer.
During the enquiry the I Party has admitted the Charges in the Proceedings held on 11.03.2002 (Ex M-10) when the
charge was read over to him. He also stated that he committed the mistake cited in the charge sheet purely because of
the ill health of himself and his family and to meet the medical expenses. In the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has
marked Exhibits MEx-1 to MEx-20 submitted by the II Party. Though opportunity was given, the I Party did not take
the assistance of a Defence Representative or Co-employee and instead relinquished the same which is recorded in the
proceedings dated 15.02.2002. Based on the inputs made available in the Enquiry, the Enquiry officer has drawn his
findings under Ex M-11 dated 13.03.2002 holding the charges as proved which amounts to gross misconduct within
the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3 clause (m), (j) of Canara Bank Service Code and also acted without honesty
and integrity and thereby contravened Regulation 2(A) (i) of Chapter XI of Canara Bank Service Code. It is equally
held that the above action of the I Party being prejudicial to the interest of the Bank he has also committed gross
misconduct within the Chapter XI Regulation 3 Clause (m) of Canara Bank Service Code.
14.
Based on Ex M-11 report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, the Deputy General Manager
issued the proposed punishment and called upon the I Party for a personal hearing. In consideration of the finding of
the Enquiry Officer, analyzing the relevant records and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by
828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the I Party during the personal hearing, a punishment of dismissal was imposed by the disciplinary authority on the
I Party as per Ex M-12 Order dated 13.08.2002.
15.
The I Party preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging Ex M-12 order. After
conducting a personal hearing of the I Party on 12.12.2003, the Appellate Authority has passed Ex M-13 order dated
24.12.2003 Dismissing the Appeal, confirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
16.
The I party then directly approached the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, by filing Ex M-1 WP
No. 31405/2004. The Respondents /Canara Bank in the Writ Petition adopted strong contentions in Ex M-3 Statement
of Objection. The Hon‘ble High Court as per Annexure-M2 order dated 25.08.2009 allowed the Writ Petition in his
favour. The said order was challenged by the II Party Canara Bank before the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru, by filing WA No. 4297/2009 (S--DIS). As per the order dated 24.08.2010, the Hon‘ble High Court
allowed the Writ Appeal setting aside the Order passed in WP No. 31405/2004 and upheld conducted by the Enquiry
Officer which led to the punishment of dismissal from service on the Respondent and also accepted the aforesaid
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority.
17.
Challenging the Judgement in the Writ Appeal, the I Party has preferred as Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
CC No. 12206/2011 before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. As per annexure Ex M-5 order dated 01.08.2011 the Special
Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon‘ble Apex Court after condoning the delay. Thus, the finding of the Enquiry
Officer which lead to the punishment of dismissal of the I Party from the Service under the II Party which stood
confirmed by the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA No. 4297/2009 became final and conclusive
as per Ex M-5 Order of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon‘ble Apex Court.
18.
However, thereafter the I Party approached the Conciliation Officer with a request for conciliation. On
failure of the conciliation attempt the matter was reported to the Central Government by the Conciliation Officer
whereon the case was referred to this Tribunal with the schedule afore quoted and Registered as CR No. 05/2013
before this Tribunal.
19.
In the meanwhile, the I party has filed an Application U/s 2(a)(2) of Industrial Dispute Act which is
numbered as ID No. 07/2012 challenging the whole actions initiated against him by the II Party and the Orders ensued
there under.
20.
The learned counsel for the II Party emphatically urged that the legality, validity and sanctity of the
proceedings of the Domestic Enquiry and the eventual finding of the Enquiry Officer accepted by the Disciplinary
Authority based on which punishment was imposed, further accepted by the Appellate Authority are all affirmed and
upheld by the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka in WA No. 4297/2009 (S-DIS) under Ex M-4 Order and the same
having been accepted and reaffirmed by the Hon‘ble Apex Court under Ex M-5 order, the I party is factually and
legally debarred from raising a further challenge upon the same by operation of the principle of res judicata envisaged
under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Doctrine of Estoppel. In support of the argument, the
learned Counsel for the II Party relied upon the ruling of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in RC Tiwari vs. MP State Co-
operative Society (AIR 1997 SC 2652). There it is held that :
―admittedly, there is a finding recorded by the Dy. Registrar upholding the misconduct of the Petitioner.
That constitutes resjudicata. No doubt, Section 11 CPC does not in term apply because it is not a court,
but a tribunal, constituted under the Societies Act is given special jurisdiction. So, the principle laid
down there under mutatis – mutandis squarely applies to the procedure provided under the Act. It
operates as resjudicata. Thus we find that the High Court is well justified to that the labour court has
no jurisdiction to decide the dispute once over and the reference itself is bad in law‖.
The learned counsel equally relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Eswar Dutt vs. Land
Acquisition Collector and another (2005 AIR SCW 3578) in which the following observation from Swamy
Atmananda and others vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others (JT 2005 (4) SC 472) is quoted which
reads :
―the object and purport of principle of res judicata as contained in Section 11 of Code Of Civil
Procedure is to uphold the rule of conclusiveness of judgement. As to the points decided earlier of fact,
or of law, or of fact and law, in every subsequent suit between the same parties. Once the matter which
was the subject matter of list stood determined by a competent court, no party thereafter can be
permitted to re-open it in a subsequent litigation. Such a rule was brought into the statute book with a
view to bring the litigation to an end so that the otherside may not be put to harassment.
The Principle of res judicata that a judgement of a court of concurrent jurisdiction directly upon a point
would create a bar as regards a plea, between the same parties in some other matter in another court,
where the said plea seeks to raise afresh the very point that was determined in the earlier judgement.‖
In Gulab Chand Chotalal Parikh vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1965 SC 1153), the constitution bench of the Hon‘ble
Apex Court held that the principles of res judicata is also applicable to subsequent suits where the same issues
between the same parties had been decided in an earlier proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
829
21.
It is a settled principle of law that a decision by the Hon‘ble High Court in Writ Petitions under Article 226
are subjected to res judicata and binding the parties in later litigation reinforcing Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In essense, a binding decision of Hon‘ble High Court brings closure to that specific dispute fostering
judicial efficiency and preventing endless litigation.
22.
The Hon‘ble Apex Court in Pooja Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Goa c/w others (2025 INSC 217)
concurrently quoted the following principle from Satyadhyan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi (1960 3 SCR 590)
―The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. What it says
is that once a res is judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past
litigation and future litigation. When a matter — whether on a question of fact or a question of law —
has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because
no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither
party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter
again. This principle of res judicata is embodied in relation to suits in Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure; but even where Section 11 does not apply, the principle of res judicata has been applied by
courts for the purpose of achieving finality in litigation. The result of this is that the original court as
well as any higher court must in any future litigation proceed on the basis that the previous decision was
correct.
The principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a
court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way
will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings.
…‖
In Pooja Ferro case supra, the Hon‘ble Apex Court with reference to the verdict of the Hon‘ble High Court of Kerala
in T P Moideen Koya vs. State of Kerala (2004 8 SCC 106) held that the principle of res judicata applies even to
the petitions arising for decision in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution.
23.
The I Party relied upon the ruling of the Hon‘ble High Court of Calcutta in M/s. Supreme and Co. vs. Netai
Bhaduri and another in WP No. 13544/2002 with CAN 2334/2014 and also Ms. Anita vs. The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Ambala and another (CWP No. 21825/2016) dated 13.05.2024. The first ruling M/s. Supreme cited
supra is on the subject of an Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The said ruling directly is not of
any help to the Appellant herein as, the question of res judicata under consideration herein is in view of the findings
of the higher courts. In the second citation Ms. Anita Case supra ofcourse, the finding rendered by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in a service matter of an Employee is rendered as nullity holding that the issue is beyond the
jurisdictional competence of the CAT, whereas in the given case the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry proceedings
and the eventual punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority were directly put under challenge before the
Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though
initially succeeded in the Writ Petition, the case of the I Party was turned down by the successive verdicts in the Writ
Appeal and the Special Leave Petition. Since the verdict passed by the Hon‘ble High Court invoking Article 226 and
227 has a binding effect on the Principle of Res judicata, those verdicts are binding on the parties to the litigations,
conclusively putting an end to the dispute raised and prohibiting a further re-agitation of the same issue. Therefore, I
am of the considered view that the present industrial dispute raised by the I Party is barred by the Principle of res
judicata. With this view, Preliminary Issue No. 2 is answered against the I Party.
24.
Preliminary Issue No. 1: At the risk of repetition I say that a rowing enquiry has been done in the matter by
the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka in respect of the fairness and propriety of the Domestic Enquiry conducted by
the II Party against the I Party and finding has also been drawn in Writ Appeal that ―on account of the three
independent statements of confession made on three different occasions before three different authorities by
the Respondent acknowledging his guilt having stolen the Gold Ornaments from the locker of the Bank, we are
of the view that the learned single judge was not justified in setting aside the finding recorded by the Enquiry
Officer and thereupon in setting aside the Order of punishment of Dismissal from Service inflicted on the
Respondent‖.
25.
The above finding is accepted, recognized and confirmed by the Hon‘ble Apex Court by dismissing the
Special Leave Petition under Ex M-5 order dated 01.08.2011. The factual scenario being so, the question whether the
Domestic Enquiry conducted against the I Party was fair and proper cannot be reinvestigated as it has been finally
concluded by the afore mentioned verdicts of the Hon‘ble Higher and Superior Judicial Hierarchical Courts applying
the principle of res judicata. With this view, this point is also answered against the I Party.
26.
Since the issue raised by the I party in ID No. 07/2012 is hit by the Principle of Res judicata, no further
points / issues are liable to be investigated and adjudicated by this tribunal. Accordingly, an Award is liable to be
passed dismissing the ID No. 07/2012.
830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
27.
In CR No. 05/2013 also the very same point is emerging for determination. Since the I Party preferred to
make all the effective submissions in ID No. 07/2012 maintaining CR No. 05/2013 to run simultaneously with
ID No. 07/2012, CR No. 05/2013 is also liable to be rejected since the point of reference is barred by res judicata.
Eventually an Award follows in CR No. 05/2013 also by rejecting the reference.
28.
Hence, the following
AWARD
ID No. 07/2012 for the reasons aforesaid is Dismissed and CR No. 05/2013 stands Rejected.
Original Award will be kept in ID No. 07/2012 and copy of the same will be kept in CR No. 05/2013.
Transmit.
(Dictated to Secretary to Court, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 22.01.2026)
K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 160.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; caxyksj ds iapkV (a48/2005) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12011/120/2005-आई आर(बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of
Maharashtra and their workmen.
[No. L-12011/120/2005– IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
PRESENT : Smt. K P INDIRA
Presiding Officer
CR No. 48 / 2005
I Party
II Party
The Secretary,
Bank of Maharashtra Employees Union,
No. 102, Near Tele Solution House,
Gandhi Bazar,
Bangalore 560 004
The Regional Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
15, Police Station Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore – 560 064
Appearance
Advocate for I Party
: Sri Shivananda D S
Advocate for II Party : Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
831
AWARD
1.
The Central Government vide Order No. L-12011/120/2005 (IR (B-II)) dated 11.11.2005 in exercise of the
powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) read with Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for
brevity ‗the Act‘ hereafter) referred the following Industrial Dispute for adjudication:
―Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in awarding the punishment of
reduction in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect on Shri Munikrishnappa, General
Clerk, Bank of Maharashtra, Gandhi Nagar Branch, Bangalore, is fair and justified? If not, to what
relief he is entitled to?‖
2.
The above matter has been remanded by the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore as per order in WP
no. 7854 / 2012 (L-RES) dated 08.02.2022 setting aside the order passed by my learned predecessor dated 05.10.2011
and directing to pass order on preliminary issue based on the available evidence which is already on record and
adjudicate the dispute and to dispose of the main reference.
3.
In obedience to the direction of the Hon‘ble High Court, the preliminary issue was considered afresh, hearing
the detailed arguments advanced from both sides. As per the order dated 17.02.2025, the preliminary issue is
answered in affirmative holding that the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II Party against the I Party is fair and
proper, keeping open all the vital aspects pointed out by the I Party allegedly invalidating the action taken by the II
Party against him to be considered on merit.
4.
The case put forth by the I Party in his claim statement in brief is as follows:
While the I Party was working as clerk in the Malleshwaram branch of the II Party Bank, on 23.09.2003, a
charge sheet was issued by the Dy. General Manger, Regional Officer Bangalore making some false and baseless
allegations against him. The Charges levelled against the I Party are that he had availed Leave Fair Concession
(herein after referred to as LFC) from 11.04.1998 to 26.04.1998 for which he has availed an advance of Rs. 15000/-
from the said branch and had submitted LFC bill dated 05.05.1998 through F-150 for Rs. 25000/- along with a final
receipt – cum certificate of journey dated 07.04.1998 issued by one Sri Durga Travels showing that he had travelled
by bus no. KA-02-N-8585 to various places. The I Party on 04.06.1998 has requested for additional advance of Rs.
2000/-. The Travel agency is reported to be a recognized by KSTDC and the I Party has produced one more receipt
stating it to be the official receipt cum certificate of journey from the same travel agency showing bus no. AP – 03 / T
– 0783 which differs in its contents from the certificate of journey submitted earlier. Vehicle bearing registration no.
KA-02-N-8585 is actually a Maruthi van owned by one Srinivasa Murthy of Vijayanagara, Bangalore and not of a bus
run by Sri Durga Travels. The management got it confirmed through the owner of the said Maruthi van that he had
not rented out his vehicle. The claim of the I Party was found to be a bogus one. On the assumption of a prima facie
misappropriation of the Bank fund, the Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet to the I Party dated 23.09.2003
alleging production of false bills / documents for getting the LFC bills sanctioned prejudicial to the interest of the
Bank which amounts to misconduct under Clause 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement applicable to the employee of
the bank. Thus, the II Party ordered Departmental Enquiry against the I Party by appointing an Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer. Based on the finding of the Enquiry Officer dated 03.03.2004, the Disciplinary Authority
imposed a punishment of reduction of scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect on the I Party for the proved
charge of gross misconduct under clause 19.5 (j) of the Bipartite settlement. The challenge raised by the I party
against the order of the Disciplinary Authority was rejected by the Appellate Authority as per its order dated
03.11.2004, confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The I Party has availed the LFC facility and travelled
and produced the bill in the year 1998. However, the charge sheet has been issued in September 2003 after a lapse of
5 years. Delay in issuance of charge sheet is fatal to the enquiry. The finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges
are proved is totally unsustainable. The Disciplinary Authority mechanically accepted the finding of the Enquiry
Officer and imposed the penalty, which is harsh, excessive and highly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and
discriminatory in nature compared to the way the management has dealt with other persons who committed similar
misconduct and who have been issued with similar charge sheet. The II Party has imposed dual punishment by
recovering a sum of Rs. 19000/- with 10.75% of interest from his salary and again by imposing the impugned
punishment by reducing salary by 2 stages with cumulative effect. By the punishment imposed the I Party is to lose
around Rs. 2500/- per month throughout his service which is totally unsustainable.
The I Party then raised an Industrial Dispute through Union before the Conciliation Officer under the ID Act.
Based on the report of failure submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the Central Government referred the matter to
this Tribunal with the Schedule aforementioned. Hence, this claim statement by the I Party seeking to set aside the
above order passed by the II Party management dated 26.03.2004 and to direct the II Party to restore increment
retrospectively from the date of its imposition and to grant all monetary benefits arising thereon with arrears.
5.
The II Party in its written statement per contra contended that the towards the Leave Fair Concession applied
for by the I Party, Rs 19000/- was released to him in advance subject to production of bills showing bills for having
spent the said amount. On verification of the receipt produced by the I Party of a travel agent showing travel by bus
with the RTO, it was revealed that the vehicle number mentioned in the bill is of a Maruti car and not of a bus. As the
owner of the said Maruti car informed that he has never given his vehicle to any agency and same being put under his
832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
personal use alone, the I Party was asked to produce the bill / receipts of his lodging at the places where he claimed to
have travelled. That also the I Party failed to produce despite repeated direction by the Management. The issuance of
charge sheet and conduct of Domestic Enquiry were then ensued and the I party was punished by the Disciplinary
Authority by reducing his scale of pay by 2 stages with cumulative effect. The said punishment is in accordance with
the gravity of misconduct committed by him and not by way of any victimization or unfair labour practice. Recovery
of Rs. 19000/- paid as advance with 10.75% interest is an administrative order for the amount falsely claimed and
availed and not by way of punishment. Actually the punishment imposed after the Domestic Enquiry is for
committing such misconduct of claiming false LFC. The II Party thus sought for rejecting the reference.
6.
From the above rival pleadings, the points arising for determination are:
a) Issue no. 01: Whether the I Party is able to demonstrate the finding of the Enquiry Officer as baseless or
perverse necessitating interference by this Tribunal?
b) Issue no. 2: If not, whether the punishment of reduction in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the appellate authority is disproportionate to the
misconduct proved against the I Party?
c) Issue no. 3: What is the award to be passed?
7.
Issue no. 1: Indisputably, the I Party while working as clerk in the II Party Bank at its Malleshwaram branch
applied for LFC claiming Rs. 25,000/- and availed a sum of Rs. 19,000/- as advance. Payment of advance was subject
to production of bills showing expenditure of money. It is seen that along with the LFC bills dated 05.05.1998, the I
Party has produced a receipt marked as Ex M4 during the domestic enquiry dated 07.04.1998 issued by one Sri Durga
Travels showing a total amount of Rs. 25,000/- having been received from the I Party for having travelled 6000 km
journey from Bangalore to Mantralaya, Hyderabad, Tirupati, Madras, Pondicherry, Kodaikanal, Ooty, Mysore,
Dharamsthala, Gokarna etc. from 07.04.1998 to 26.04.1998 using vehicle no. KA-02 N 8585. It is the case of the II
Party that when probed based on the said receipt, it stood revealed that aforementioned vehicle no. KA-02 N 8585 is a
Maruti van owned by one Sh. Srinivasa Murthi, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, whereas according to the I Party he
undertook the tourage in a bus arranged by M/s Sri Durga Travels bearing aforesaid registration number.
Aforementioned Sh. Srinivasa Murthi, Vijayanagar, on interrogation has denied and disowned having allowed his car
on rental basis during the period in question. To buttress its case, II party has relied upon Ex M-6 (Enquiry
document), the register extract issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Rajajinagar Bangalore (West) showing the
date of registration of vehicle no. KA 02 N 8585 as 15.11.1995 with the name of the owner as Mr. Ravi Kumar V and
transfer of ownership to Sh. G V Srinivasa Murthi w.e.f. 20.04.1995. As per the norms of a LFC application cum
sanction, the employee was not permitted to travel by private taxi, the II Party contended. It is further seen from the
records that one more receipt stated to be final receipt - cum - certificate of journey from the very same travel agency
dated 07.04.1998 marked as Ex M-5/1 during the enquiry was also produced by the I Party showing vehicle no. AP 03
/ T – 0783 reiterating the very same places of tourage, very same distance of 6000 km at an expense of Rs. 25,000/-.
Receipt number shown in Ex M5/1 is 1488 whereas the one shown in Ex M4 is 1897. Similarly Ex M5/1 shows
special permit no. 904/A398 whereas no such number is seen mentioned in Ex M4. Instead what is seen written
against special permit number in Ex M4 is (FULL CAR). The Regional Transport Authority of Bangalore Division
Office is shown as the issuing authority in document Ex M4 while Regional Transport Authority Chittoor (AP) is
mentioned as the issuing authority in document Ex M5/1. Curiously, vehicle number as well as the name of the
issuing authority are seen written in Ex M5/1 after erasing the original writing using whitener. On reading the erased
portion using a magnifying lens , it is clearly seen that the vehicle number is re-written as AP 03 / T – 0783 after
erasing the original writing ―KA 02 N 8585‖ and the name of the issuing authority is rewritten as ITA Chittoor AP
by erasing original writing ―Bangalore Division Office‖. The aforementioned erasure or overwriting are not
authenticated by the authority concerned. So it is clear that document Ex M5/1 pertaining to vehicle no. AP 03 T 0783
is a manipulated document materially altering a duplicate of Ex M4. Being the person responsible for production of
this materially altered / fabricated document before the employer, the I Party was necessarily made liable to face the
departmental enquiry.
8.
On a perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that he has examined each and
every aspect with precision, significantly taking note of each minute aspect came across during the enquiry
proceeding with reference to the documents made available by the management and the I Party CSE and the oral
narration of the management witnesses.
9.
While analysing the photograph of the tourage furnished by the I Party, the Enquiry Officer very pertinently
noted that though all the members of the family including wife, children and mother of the I Party are shown as the
persons accompanying in the tourage, the photographs do not reveal the co-passengers. As rightly observed by the
Enquiry Officer, this is the crucial aspect when judged in the shady and suspicious scenario relating to the
manipulations regarding the vehicles allegedly used for undertaking the journey. The evidence of the witness
examined from the side of the management to prove the documents is closely analysed and scrutinized by the Enquiry
Officer in his enquiry report. The Domestic Enquiry records would indicate that the I Party himself raised an
argument before the Enquiry Officer that he was not in the know-how that M/s Durga Travels had no proper permit as
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
833
authorized travel agent. Having taken the task of producing Ex M4 and M5 series to his employer under the hand and
seal of Sri Durga Travels to assert that he has undertaken tourage through the said travel, it is quite anomalous for him
to urge that the said travel agency is not an authorized travel agent. As a responsible employee, he should be aware of
the fact that travel documents from travel agencies through whom the tour program was undertaken is a very essential
and genuine document to be produced before the authority to claim Leave Fare Concession (LFC). The material
alteration in Ex M 5/1 referred to above being so glaring, apparent and patent, not at all authenticated or duly
certified, the I Party cannot be heard much on making his own justifications about his alleged tourage. On a close
analysis of the evidence tendered by the I Party , I do not find any valid or genuine grounds explaining the dubious
circumstances emerged in the vehicle receipts referred to above.
10.
The I Party has emphatically blamed the II Party for the non-examination of Sh. L T Vijayaendra, the then
Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, who conducted initial investigation in the matter and submitted Ex M 7/1 report dated
15.09.1998 to the Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra. Of course, the said Manager is not seen examined during
the domestic enquiry. What he has brought out in his report Ex M 7/1 is that :-
(1) Vehicle no. KA 02 – N 8585 is a Maruti Zen car registered for private use only;
(2) The owner had denied having allowed the said car for public conducted tours and;
(3) M/s Durga Travel - travel agency is not engaging private vehicles to conduct public tours.
11.
Actually, the II Party has brought in evidence Ex M 17, the copy of a letter sent by the Branch Manager
dated 14.09.1998 to aforementioned Sh. G V Srinivasa Murthi, Vijayanagar Bangalore, seeking confirmation with
particulars whether his vehicle bearing no. KA 02 – N 8585 was let out for travelling purpose from 07.04.1998 to
28.04.1998 for LTC purpose to M/s Durga Travels, Bangalore. Ex M-18 is the reply given by Sh. G V Srinivasa
Murthi that the aforesaid vehicle (Maruti car) is for his private cum personal use and he has not let it to any travel
agency for conducting any public tours at any time. Since the owner himself has declared the fact that the vehicle
aforementioned is a private car and the same has not been let to any travel agency for conducting any public tour at
any time, non-examination of Sh. L T Vijayaendra, the Manager in the domestic enquiry is not that crucial or
significant, nor his examination caused any detriment to the action initiated by the management against the workman.
The enquiry records would indicate that sufficient opportunity was given to the I Party to produce the RTO permit in
respect of the vehicle said to have been used for undertaking the tour / journey and he did not produce the same at any
point of time. MW1, the Manager, testified that he himself has visited the office of M/s Durga Travels for verification
of the bills submitted by the I Party and he was informed by the employee of M/s Durga Travels that the persons
employed during April-May 1998 have been discontinued and the records of that period are not available for
reference or for confirmation. On a perusal of the enquiry records, I am convinced that all valid and essential piece of
evidence has been let in by the II Party management in the domestic enquiry proceedings which strongly establish that
the I Party has brought in fake and forged documents to claim LFC benefits and obtained a sum of Rs. 19,000/- by 3
occasions from the management. None of the counter arguments set forth by the I Party in this regard is capable of
defeating the case of the II Party.
12.
Another emphatic argument raised on behalf of the I Party is that the charge sheet has been issued to him by
an incompetent person whereas it ought to have been issued by the Chief Manager and therefore the charge sheet is
void and the enquiry conducted on such void charge sheet is liable to be set aside and no sanctity could be attached to
such an enquiry. It is equally urged that the enquiry conducted being so, the punishment imposed on the I Party
workman on such a charge sheet is liable to be set aside. Of course, Ex M 1/1 charge sheet dated 23.09.2003 is seen
issued by the disciplinary authority and Dy. General Manager, Bangalore region. The contention raised by the I Party
alleging incompetency on the authority who issued the charge sheet is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for
the II Party voicing that it is not all the more required that the authority competent to impose penalty itself must
initiate disciplinary proceedings. In P V Srinivasa Sastry and others vs. Comptroller & Auditor General and
others (AIR 1993 SC 1321), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ―In absence of a Rule, any superior authority who can
be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding.‖ On a later occasion in Inspector General of
Police and another vs. Thavasiappan (AIR 1996 SC 1318) also, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the absence of
any specific rule, the initiation of proceedings by an authority higher in rank to the delinquent is not vitiated and it is
not necessary always that the departmental proceeding is to be initiated only by the appointing authority.
13.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India and another vs. Dr Diwakar and others (AIR 1998
SC 2210) concurred and quoted the following from Director General, ESI & Anr vs T. Abdul Razak (1996 SCC
(4) 708) which reads :-
“it is not necessary that the authority competent to impose the penalty must initiate the disciplinary
proceedings and that the proceedings can be initiated by any superior authority who can be held to be the
controlling authority who may be an officer subordinate to the appointing authority.”
14.
Following the above afore cited rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court , the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras in
Superintending Engineer, Madurai vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (WP 10097 of 1995 dated 01.03.2002)
held that :-
834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“It is obvious that such a proceedings could have been initiated by the Controlling Authority even though
he is not the appointing authority.”
15.
In view of this legal principle enunciated in the rulings cited supra , the contention raised and the argument
advanced by the I Party challenging and questioning the competency of the Dy. General Manager who issued the
charge sheet is absolutely untenable and unsustainable. Accordingly, no evil consequence should follow in respect of
the action initiated by the Disciplinary Authority against the I Party.
16.
Another fold of argument raised by the I Party is that the disciplinary action initiated by the II party stood
unreasonably delayed and hence he could not get the requisite documents from the aforementioned travel agency to
defend his case. Of course, the LFC application was submitted by him in the year 1998 for the block period 1998 to
2002 to avail the facility from 07.04.1998 till 26.04.1998. Eventual to the production of Ex M4 and M5/1, the so
called final receipt cum certificates of journey which raised a lot of suspicion and anomalous features, the
management went on making its own investigations and recurrently requested the I Party to produce RTO permit
copy in respect of the vehicle which he allegedly used for his tour journey. Till 2002 the anomalous factors were not
got clarified by the I party. Instead, as per Ex M-8 dated 12.02.2002 in response to the II Party‘s letter dated
29.01.2002 calling for explanation from him regarding the number of the bus in which he had travelled under LFC ,
he has stated to the II Party that the second bill (Ex M5/1) is submitted by him as the vehicle number in the earlier bill
contained a typographical error. The resubmitted bill is nothing other than Ex M5/1 which obviously is a manipulated,
fabricated and materially altered document as apparent on the face of it. Ex M5/2 cash receipt dated 07.04.1998 by
Sri Durga Travels acknowledging Rs. 25000/- bears receipt no. 1488 which is quoted in Ex M5/1, the forged
document. Ex M5/2 receipt also becomes a shady document since a different receipt number viz., 1897 is seen written
in Ex M4 final receipt.
17.
So the reply submitted by him in 2002 also did not reconcile the issue. Though he was specifically asked as
early as on 14.05.1998 to produce 1) RTO Permit copy number, 2) Lodge bill as a proof of stay, 3) Stamp receipt for
Rs. 25000/- and 4) Original receipt number 1897 mentioned in the bill (Ex M4), he did not comply with the direction
at all. Again the II Party has continued correspondences with him in writing. Instead of adhering to the direction, he
preferred to send letter dated 04.06.1998 Ex M-11 demanding an additional advance of Rs. 2000/- to meet an urgent
need to pay off the Karnataka Electricity Bill amount, assuring that he would submit RTO and LFC bill certificate on
the next day. Honouring the urgent need expressed by him, the II Party management has sanctioned an additional
advance of Rs. 2000/-, thereby making the total advance so far disbursed as Rs. 17000/-. All the continued
communications issued by the II Party to him requiring production of the crucial documents did meet with no positive
response from him. However, an additional advance of Rs. 2000/- was sanctioned by the II Party during April 2001,
making the total LFC advance disbursed to the I Party as Rs. 19000/-. As per the letter dated 18.07.2001, the Assistant
General Manager, Bangalore region has addressed the Branch Manager of the II Party bank to reject the LFC bill for
the discrepancies between Ex M4 and M5 bills submitted by the I Party rendering the identity of the vehicle
absolutely vague and suspicious and to recover the entire advance disbursed under LFC scheme to the I Party. The
said matter was informed by the Branch Manager to the I Party as per Ex M21 letter dated 25.07.2001 requiring him
to pay back the advance with interest immediately. In response to the above intimation, the I Party sent Ex M22 letter
dated 05.08.2001 requesting to give Xerox copies of the LFC bills submitted by him in April 1998. Since the
captioned bills were sent to the regional office by way of endorsement in Ex M22, the Branch Manager made a
request to the regional office to make the copies available to the delinquent staff. Conversely on getting Xerox copies
of the LFC bills, the I Party under Ex M-23 letter dated 09.10.2001 informed the Branch Manager that the bill
submitted by him are genuine and the same should be reimbursed immediately. This fact was in turn intimated to the
Assistant General Manager by the Branch Manager as per Ex M24 letter dated 12.10.2001. Then on 24.01.2002 as per
Ex M 25/1 notice, explanation was called for from the I Party by the Assistant General Manager specifically narrating
the discrepancies in the bills on its preliminary appraisal that he has committed misconducts relating to availing of
LFC facility. The II Party management has waited for a considerable time for his explanation. As there was no reply
from him, ultimately the II Party has initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the I Party by appointing the
Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer.
18.
Reckoning the umpteen number of communications / intimations sent by the II party to the I party
successively in sequence calling upon him to produce necessary documents to sanction the LFC bill and the assurance
made by him to adhere to the direction and the negation / refusal of the I Party thenceforth, I do not find any wilfull or
deliberate delay on the part of the II Party management to initiate the proceedings.
19.
The contention of the I Party that due to the delay he could not collect necessary evidence to support his
defence from the travel agency is absolutely untenable and unsustainable for the very reason that ample opportunities
were accorded to him to produce relevant documents from the concerned and he simply negated or rather ignored it.
Instead all along he has been commanding the management to sanction his LFC bills for the rest of the amount
claimed. Had he been so vigilant to collect valid evidence from the travel agency and the Regional Transport
Authorities, he could have certainly done it at a very early point of time when the II Party has expressed unfaith and
severe suspicion in respect of the documents Ex M4 and M5/1 and M5/2 produced by him. Apart, no attempt has
been made by him to put in an application before the Enquiry Officer to summon the authority concerned of Sri Durga
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
835
Travels to speak on the aforementioned receipts. So there is nothing on record to show that Sri Durga Travels stood
closed by the time the enquiry was initiated as urged by the I Party.
20.
All these would indicate that the I Party has been well aware of the foul play made in the transaction and he
could not improvise his case anymore. The principles of natural justice are not successfully shown to have been
violated in initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the I Party. The factual matrix being so, the legal principles
in the rulings in Abdulla A. Latif Shah vs. Bombay Port Trust and Others (1992 (1) LLJ 226) and R K Gupta vs.
Coal India LTD and others (1993 (1) LLJ 931) relied upon by the I Party are not of any help to him. In the second
ruling supra, the facts indicate that the purported charges are absolutely vague and so it is held that on vague
allegation of charges the petitioner cannot be proceeded against. In the first ruling cited supra also so many laches
from the side of the employer in the conduct of the Domestic Enquiry were detected, which, along with a finding that
the charge sheet is delayed and stale led to the conclusion that such a charge sheet cannot be proceeded with since the
enquiry held on it suffers from breach of natural justice. No such event intervenes in the case on hand disqualifying
the charge sheet issued to the I Party preceding enquiry. On all these counts, I do not find any force in the argument
raised by the I Party that the enquiry is vitiated by reason of its delayed initiation.
21.
In the finding of the Enquiry Officer on culmination of the domestic enquiry, the charge levelled against the I
Party / delinquent officer that his action of producing the false bills / documents for getting the LFC bills sanctioned
was held as proved under Ex M-4 report dated 08.03.2004, marked Ex M4 in evidence before this Tribunal. The
Enquiry Officer has arrived at the above finding after a full-fledged enquiry and by deeply analysing the extensive
oral and documentary evidence adduced by the management through the Presenting Officer. Though the I Party has
availed the opportunity to tender rebuttal evidence by examining him as a defence witness, later he preferred to
withdraw from adducing defence evidence. His voluntary relinquishment of the right of adducing rebuttal evidence
from his side would lead to the solitary conclusion that he has got nothing to put on record against what is proved
against him by the II Party in the enquiry. The proved act committed by the I Party by producing false and
manipulated documents is absolutely unbecoming of a bank official. The purpose of producing the forged and fake
documents Ex M4 and M5/1 before the bank is for getting the LFC bill sanctioned very immediately in respect of the
rest of the amount he claimed. On facts as well as on law, the finding drawn by the Enquiry Officer is neither perverse
nor biased, but simply based on the concrete materials and evidence brought on record by the II Party. Therefore, the
finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer does not suffer from any infirmities nor does it stand vitiated by any
illegalities. Hence , the contention raised by the I Party that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse, biased and
arbitrary assumes no force or acceptance. Ergo, the said finding does not warrant any interference from this Tribunal.
With this view, issue no. 1 is answered against the I Party.
22.
Issue no. 2: An argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party with reference to the ruling of
the Hon‘ble High Court of Karnataka in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation rep. by its Chief Law
Officer, vs. BMTC and State Transport Naukarara Sangha (ILR 2011 Karnataka 2037) that the Central
Reference cannot be maintainable as this Tribunal gets jurisdiction u/s 11(A) of the ID Act only on dismissal or
discharge of workman. In the given case, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the I Party is
reduction in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. As a matter of fact and as per law, an order reducing
employees‘ pay scale can be challenged u/s 11(A) of the Act if the reduction is deemed as a disciplinary action. The
commentary of Sec 11(A) assertively explain that the provision empowers labour courts , Tribunal and National
Tribunals to ―review and modify‖ disciplinary action including those resulting in pay reductions if they find the
punishment to be disproportionate to the misconduct. Therefore, the I Party cannot be found fault with in approaching
the Central Government seeking redressal of his grievance against the punishment imposed on him by the authority
concerned by getting the matter referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. Therefore, this argument raised by the II
Party cannot be accepted.
23.
On facts, on receipt of finding from the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority proposed a punishment
and issued notice to the I Party calling for his explanation. After getting his explanation and evaluating the entire
factual matrix, the Disciplinary Authority as per its order (Ex M6) dated 23.06.2004 imposed the punishment of
reduction in scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect. The authority also passed an administrative order on
the very same date i.e., 23.06.2004 directing the I Party to make good the amount of Rs. 19,000/-, the amount availed
by him in advance under LFC with simple interest @ 10.75% p.a. immediately.
24.
Vehement argument is advanced on behalf of the I Party that by taking refund of Rs. 19000/- from him and
by imposing reduction in scale of pay by 2 stages with cumulative effect, the II Party has imposed dual punishment on
him which amounts to double jeopardy which is prohibited in law. As a matter of fact, refund of Rs. 19000/- availed
by the I Party as LFC advance cannot be characterised as a punishment. Instead it is only a recovery of the money
wrongly availed by him by producing unreliable and invalid documents as an advance towards LFC claim. By taking
refund of it, the II Party has done only recouping of the money wrongly parted with to its credit. Actually, punishment
imposed on him is the one by reducing scale of pay by 2 stages with cumulative effect and that punishment in no way
is vitiated by any intervening events or circumstances.
836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25.
On a close analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned punishment imposed by
the Disciplinary Authority under Ex M-6 dated 23.06.2004 and confirmed by the appellate authority under Ex M-7
order dated 03.11.2004 do not appear to be disproportionate, arbitrary or illegal. No harm is done to the job prospects
of the I Party by the impugned punishment. A reduction in the pay scale though brings about a substantial loss to the I
Party on the monetary side, such an administrative intervention stands duly warranted and justified in terms of the
misconduct committed. Reasonableness and legality of the punishment imposed has to be adjudged not from the point
of view of the monetary loss caused to the delinquent officer but on a wider sense of the act of illegality and
immorality committed by him to the employer establishment. When viewed so, I am of the definite view that the
punishment imposed is strictly commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct / misdeed committed by the
employee I Party. Therefore, I conclude by answering this issue that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority under Ex M6 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Ex M7 is not disproportional, excessive,
arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly, the relief sought by the I Party to set aside Ex M6 order awarding punishment of
reduction of scale of pay by 2 stages with cumulative effect and to direct the II party management to restore the same
retrospectively from the date of its imposition and to further direct the II Party to grant the workman all the monetary
benefits along with arrears also do fail. Hence it is concluded that the case and claim put forth by the I Party is devoid
of merit and bereft of bona fides and it is liable to be dismissed. With this view, this issue is also answered against the
I Party.
26.
Issue no. 3: From the above finding, the following Award is passed.
AWARD
The reference is rejected.
(Dictated to LDC, transcribed by him, corrected and signed by me on 19th January 2026)
Smt. K P INDIRA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 161.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार नोदकया स्ल्यूिंस एंड नेटवजसा इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, मुंबई के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं सीईओ, वोडाफोन आइजडया
जलजमटेड के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं सीईओ, डीएलएफ साइबर ग्रीन्स, गुरुग्राम और श्री संतोष कुमार ससह कमाचारी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या-09/2021) को
जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/03आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 09/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in The
Managing Director & CEO, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited, Mumbai, The Managing
Director & CEO, Vodafone Idea Limited. DLF Cyber Greens, Gurugram and Shri Santosh Kumar Singh
workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/03-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
837
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 09/2021
Ref. No. K-10/1-17/2020-IR dated 18.01.2021
BETWEEN
Shri Santosh Kumar Singh (UP) ([email protected])
AND
1. The Managing Director & CEO, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited, Birla Centurian, 10th
Floor, Plot No.794,B Wing, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030.
2. The Managing Director & CEO, Vodafone Idea Limited. DLF Cyber Greens, Tower A, 6th Floor, DLF Cyber
City, DLF Phase II, Sector-24, Gurugram-122002.
AWARD
By order No. K-10/1-17/2020-IR dated 18.01.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to this Tribunal 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 Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, Bss Filed Engineer can be treated as workman? If so, whether the
alleged termination of his services by the management of Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd./
Vodafone Idea Limited is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and
from which date?"
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 09/2021 has been registered on 28.01.2021.
On 03.08.2021 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit.
Facts stated in the claim petition are in brief that claimant was initially appointed with the respondent; however
without following the provision of retrenchment as provided under section 25 (F), 25 (G) & 25 (H) of the Industrial
Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) his services were dispensed on 05.02.2020.
On behalf of the respondent no. 2 statement of defense filed on 12.03.2023 and respondent no. 1 filed its written
statement on 11.09.2023 in which preliminary objection also taken by the respondent.
After filing of the written statement by respondent, in spite of opportunities given to workman, he neither filed
rejoinder nor evidence in support of his case on affidavit
Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records.
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his case on
affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble
High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is
challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file
written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
As the workman has not filed any rejoinder/affidavit (examination-in-chief) so it is a case of no evidence filed on
behalf of workman in support of case set up by her, liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
24th December, 2025
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 162.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार नोदकया स्ल्यूिंस एंड नेटवजसा इंजडया प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, मुंबई के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं सीईओ, वोडाफोन आइजडया
जलजमटेड के प्रबंि जनिेिक एवं सीईओ, डीएलएफ साइबर ग्रीन्स, गुरुग्राम और श्री संिीृ कुमार गुप्ता कमाचारी के माध्यम
से कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ ृंचाट(संिभा
सं्या-10/2021) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/02आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in The
Managing Director & CEO, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited, Mumbai,The Managing
Director & CEO, Vodafone Idea Limited. DLF Cyber Greens, Gurugram and Shri Sandeep Kumar Gupta
workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/02-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. No. 10/2021
Ref. No. K-10/1-7/2020-IR dated 18.01.2021
BETWEEN
1.
Shri Sandeep Kumar Gupta (UP) ([email protected])
AND
1.
The Managing Director & CEO, Nokia Solutions and Networks India Private Limited,
Birla Centurian, 10th Floor, Plot No.794,B Wing, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400030.
2. The Managing Director & CEO, Vodafone Idea Limited. DLF Cyber Greens, Tower A, 6th Floor, DLF
Cyber City, DLF Phase II, Sector-24, Gurugram-122002.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
839
AWARD
By order No. K-10/1-7/2020-IR dated 18.01.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred for
adjudication to this Tribunal 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 Shri Sanfrrp Kumar Gupta, Bss Flm Engineer can be treated as workman? If so, whether the
alleged termination of his services by the management of Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd./
Vodafone Idea Limited is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and
from which date?"
Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 10/2021 has been registered on 28.01.2021.
On 06.08.2021 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit.
Facts stated in the claim petition are in brief that claimant was initially appointed with the respondent; however
without following the provision of retrenchment as provided under section 25 (F), 25 (G) & 25 (H) of the Industrial
Dispute Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) his services were dispensed on 21.01.2020.
On behalf of the respondent no. 2 statement of defense filed on 12.03.2024 and respondent no. 1 filed its written
statement on 11.10.2023 in which preliminary objection also taken by the respondent.
After filing of the written statement by respondent, in spite of opportunities given to workman, he neither filed
rejoinder nor evidence in support of his case on affidavit
Accordingly heard learned counsel for respondent and gone through the records.
In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field any rejoinder/evidence in support of his case on
affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble
High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.
Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative
for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is
challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file
written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in
favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,
V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)
FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led
by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In
such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead
evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,
who would fail if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as
under:
“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the
respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.
A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led
by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”
As the workman has not filed any rejoinder/affidavit (examination-in-chief) so it is a case of no evidence filed on
behalf of workman in support of case set up by her, liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Award as above.
Lucknow.
24th December, 2025
Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Let two copies of this award be sent to the Ministry for publication.
840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 163.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार केंरीय जवद्यालय संग न, जोनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ एजुकेिन एंड रेसनग, केंर िाजसत प्रिेि, चंडीगढ़, एनआईृीएस
सर्ववसेज प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, एससीओ केंर िाजसत प्रिेि, चंडीगढ़, एनआईृीएस सर्ववसेज प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, द्वारका, नई
दिल्ली और प ना िेवी कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय-I
चंडीगढ़ ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या-05/2019) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/04आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court-I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in M/s
Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, Zonal Institute of Education and Training, Union Territory, Chandigarh, M/s. NIPS
Services Private Limited, SCO Union Territory, Chandigarh, M/s. NIPS Services Private Limited, Dwarka,
New Delhi and Runa Devi workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/04-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Present : Mr. Kamal Kant, PO-cum-Link Officer
ID No.05/2019
Registered on – 10.04.2019
Runa Devi aged 40 years wife of Sh. Shivji Pal, resident of House no.971-A, Guru Nanak Colony, Sector 65-
A, Jagatpura, District Mohali, Punjab.
….. Workman
Versus
1. M/s Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, Zonal Institute of Education and Training, Sector 33-C, Union
Territory, Chandigarh, through its Director.
2. M/s. NIPS Services Private Limited, SCO No.50, Ground Floor (Back Side) Sector 47-C Union Territory,
Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Manager.
Head Office
M/s. NIPS Services Private Limited, C-64, Shri Chand Park, Matiala, Behind Sector-3, Dwarka, New Delhi-
110059, through its Managing Director.
……Respondents
Present:-
Sh. M S Gorsi, AR for Workman
Sh. Harsh Aggarwal, AR for Respondent No.1.
None for Respondent No.2.
Award : 12.01.2026
1.
Workman has filed the present application under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter called as the Act) against her illegal termination claiming reinstatement with continuity of service, with
full back wages and along with all consequential benefits.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
841
2.
In this case affidavit of workman was filed on 11.10.2023 and the case was adjourned for cross-examination
of workman. However, the workman is not turning up for her cross-examination since 11.10.2023. The workman has
been given sufficient opportunities for her cross-examination but in spite of the opportunities afforded to her, she is
not turning up for her cross-examination, which shows that the she is not interested in adjudication of the matter on
merit. Moreover, AR for workman stated that the workman is not contacting him from the last two years.
3.
Since the workman has not turned up for her cross-examination since 11.10.2023, as such, this Tribunal is
left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the present
reference.
4.
Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for
publication.
KAMAL KANT, President Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 164.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार माजलक, मजससा. श्री ित्ता रेवल्स, मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र, माजलक, मजससा। न्यू वे रेवल्स, मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र, कायाकारी जनिेिक
एचआर, मजससा। राष्ट्रीय केजमकल एंड फर्टटलाइजसा जलजमटेड, जप्रयििानी प्रिासजनक भवन, चेंबूर, मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र और
उृाध्यक्ष, रायगढ़ श्रजमक एकटा, रायगढ़, मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र ,कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- 2 मुंबई,ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या- (CGIT-2/16 of 2019)) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में
दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42011/253/2018-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. (CGIT-2/16 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in The Proprietor, M/s. Shree Datta Travels, Mumbai, Maharashtra, The Proprietor, M/s. New Way Travels,
Mumbai, Maharashtra, The Executive Director HR, M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd.,
Priyadarshini Administrative Building, Chembur, Mumbai, Maharashtra and The Vice President, Raigad
Shramik Aekata, Raigad, Mumbai, Maharashtra workman.
[No. L-42011/253/2018-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/16 of 2019
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
First Party No. 1. M/s. Shree Datta Travels
The Proprietor,
M/s. Shree Datta Travels, A/54, Amar Vikas Mandal, Plot No.10,
842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Behind Municipal School, Sewri Cross Road, Wadala,
Mumbai 400 031. State: Maharashtra
2.
M/s. New Way Travels
The Proprietor,
M/s. New Way Travels, Shop No.7,
Building No. 4/7,
Near Vidyamandir School, Tagore Nagar,
Vikhroli (E), Mumbai 400 083. State: Maharashtra
3.
M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd.,
The Executive Director HR,
M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd., Priyadarshini Administrative Building, Chembur,
Mumbai 400 074. State: Maharashtra
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Party No.2
(Raigad Shramik Aekata)
The Vice President, Raigad Shramik Aekata C/o A.D. Patil,
H.No. 36,
At Post- Navade, Taluka- Panvel,
Distt. Raigad 410 208, State: (Raigad) Maharashtra
APPEARANCES:
Management No.1,2 & 3
:
No appearance.
Workmen
:
No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 23-01-2026)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-42011/253/2018 - (IR(DU)) dated 12.02.2019. The
terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the demand of Raigad Shramik Aekata Sangh, Panvel, Distt Raigad, Maharashtra either for
permanency of 24 drivers as per union’s letter dated 24.09.2017 employed through 1. M/s. New Way Travels
& 2. M/s. Shree Datta Travels, Transport Contractors,
in the establishment of Principal Employer M/s. Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. or its demand for similar pay
structure and attendant benefits of the permanent drivers of the P.E. i.e. M/s. RCF Ltd. to the said contract Drivers
under the dispute is just and proper? If so, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”
Sl. No.
Workmen
1
Mr. Vijay Sahebrao Mandave
2
Mr. Suresh Balraj Bhaipuri
3
Mr. Rohit Lalji Chauhan
4
Mr. Sanjay Raosaheb Gajghat
5
Mr. Mahesh Nana Patil
6
Mr. Chetan Ramesh Gaokar
7
Mr. Nagesh Vijay Waghmare
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
843
8
Mr. Sachin Ranesh Garud
9
Mr. Sandeep Harishchandra Balshankar
10
Mr. Kishor Ratan Chauhan
11
Mr. Gorakhnath Balu Kumbhar
12
Mr. Sanju Surendra Singh
13
Mr. Neru Suresh Rathod
14
Mr. Sachin Shripal Dharpawar
15
Mr. Aatish Ananda Joshi
16
Mr. Gautam Shamrao Suman
17
Mr. Samadhan R Shinde
18
Mr. Siddhartha Sanjay Shinde
19
Mr. Balkrishna Baliram Talekar
20
Mr. Ashok Dilip Gaikwad
21
Mr. Mohammad Shahid
22
Mr. Pradeep Umar Parkar
23
Mr. Mangesh Ahire
24
Mr. Sandeep M Kamble
2.
The case is called out today. Both parties are absent. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, both
parties are not responding and attending the Court since 30.07.2019 i.e., more than 6 years. No Statement of Claim
has been filed by the petitioner/workmen till today. The respondents have also not filed their Written Statements
up to now. It appears that, both parties are not interested to contest the case furthermore. No other evidence
has been filed by the petitioner/workmen to prove their case. The claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, the
case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The demand of Raigad Shramik Aekata Sangh, Panvel, Distt Raigad, Maharashtra either for permanency of
24 drivers as per union’s letter dated 24.09.2017 employed through 1. M/s. New Way Travels & 2. M/s.
Shree Datta Travels, Transport Contractors, in the establishment of Principal Employer M/s. Rashtriya
Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. or its demand for similar pay structure and attendant benefits of the permanent
drivers of the P.E. i.e. M/s. RCF Ltd. to the said contract Drivers under the dispute is not just and proper. The
concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Date: 23-01-2026
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 165.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससा कुिांग जसजयोररटी एंड प्रोटेजिन सर्ववसेज, मुंबई, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ इंडजस्ट्रयल इंजीजनयररग
(एनआईटीआईई), जनिेिक, एनआईटीआईई, जवहार लेक, मुंबई और सजचव, मुंबई श्रजमक संघ, मुंबई कमाचारी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- 2, मुंबई ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या- (CGIT-2/28
of 2019)) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42011/53/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. (CGIT-2/28 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services, Mumbai, National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE)The Director, NITIE, Vihar Lake, Mumbai and The Secretary ,Mumbai Shramik Sangh, Mumbai
workman.
[No. L-42011/53/2019-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING
OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/28 of 2019
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
Party No.1
M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services
760, Ambikawadi, Saltpan Road,
Wadala (E), Mumbai 400037.
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE)
The Director, NITIE, Vihar Lake,
Po- NITIE,
Mumbai 400087.
AND
THEIR WORKMN.
Party No.2
(Mumbai Shramik Sangh)
The Secretary,
Mumbai Shramik Sangh, Sangharsh Quarry Road,
Bhandup (W),
Mumbai- 400 078.
APPEARANCES:
Management No.1
No appearance
Management No.2
:
Mr. N. G. Helekar
Advocate
Workmen
:
No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 18-12-2025)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-42011/53/2019 (IR(DU) dated 02.05.2019. The terms
of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services a contractor
employed in the establishment of NITIE w.e.f. 01.06.2017 in terminating the services of Sh. 1. Alin V. Ayare,
unskilled labour, 2. Sh. Deelip P. Kolekar, gardner & 3. Vinod R. Jadhav, House Keeping labourw.e.f.
01.11.2017 allegedly at the behest of P.E. (NITIE) who were employed in the establishment of NITIE
allegedly for the last 5 to 12 years, irrespective of the contractor changed from time to time, is just and
proper? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
845
2.
The case is called out today. Mr. Akhilesh Adhav holding brief of the learned counsel Mr. N. G. Helekar is
present before the court on behalf of the respondent no.2. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner as well as
respondent no.1 despite service of notices. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not
responding and attending the Court since 19.10.2023 long back Although, Statement of Claim has been filed by the
petitioner but no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. One application dated 18.12.2025
has been moved by the respondent no.2 for dismissal of the case in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner is
not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner is not interested to contest the case
furthermore. The claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services a contractor employed in the
establishment of NITIE w.e.f. 01.06.2017 in terminating the services of Sh. 1. AlinV. Ayare, unskilled labour,
2. Sh. Deelip P. Kolekar, gardner & 3. Vinod R. Jadhav, House Keeping labour w.e.f. 01.11.2017 allegedly
at the behest ofP.E. (NITIE) who were employed in the establishment of NITIE allegedly for the last 5
to 1years, irrespective of the contractor changed from time to time, is just and proper. The concerned
workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Date: 18-12-2025
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 166.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससा कुिांग जसजयोररटी एंड प्रोटेजिन सर्ववसेज, मुंबई, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ इंडजस्ट्रयल इंजीजनयररग
(एनआईटीआईई), जनिेिक, एनआईटीआईई, जवहार लेक, मुंबई और सजचव, मुंबई श्रजमक संघ, मुंबई कमाचारी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- 2 मुंबई,ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या- (CGIT-2/26
of 2019)) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42011/54/2019-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 166.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. (CGIT-2/26 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-2 Mumbai, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services, Mumbai, National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE)The Director, NITIE, Vihar Lake, Mumbai and The Secretary Mumbai Shramik Sangh, Mumbai
workman.
[No. L-42011/54/2019-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
PRESIDING OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/26 of 2019
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF
846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Party No.1 M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services
760, Ambikawadi,
Saltpan Road,
Wadala (E),
Mumbai 400037.
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE)
The Director,
NITIE, Vihar Lake,
Po- NITIE,
Mumbai 400087.
AND
THEIR WORKMN.
Party No.2 (Mumbai Shramik Sangh)
The Secretary,
Mumbai Shramik Sangh,
Sangharsh Quarry Road,
Bhandup (W),
Mumbai- 400 078.
APPEARANCES:
Management No.1
No appearance
Management No.2
: Mr. N. G. Helekar
Advocate
Workmen
: No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 18-12-2025)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-42011/54/2019 (IR(DU) dated 02.05.2019. The terms of
reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services a contractor
employed in the establishment of NITIE w.e.f. 01.06.2017 in terminating the services of Sh. 1. Laxman
Gira, House Keeping worker, 2. Ashok P. Jadhav, House Keeping workers & 3. Ram B. Zugare, Plumber/
helper w.e.f. 05.12.2017 who were employed in the establishment of NITIE allegedly for the last 5 to 13
years, irrespective of the contractor changed from time to time, at the behest of P.E. is just and proper? If
not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”
2.
The case is called out today. Mr. Akhilesh Adhav holding brief of the learned counsel Mr. N. G. Helekar is
present before the court on behalf of the respondent no.2. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner as well as
respondent no.1 despite service of notices. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not responding
and attending the Court since 19.10.2023 long back Although, Statement of Claim has been filed by the petitioner but
no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. One application dated 18.12.2025 has been moved
by the respondent no.2 for dismissal of the case in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner is not coming to the
court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the
petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services a contractor
employed in the establishment of NITIE w.e.f. 01.06.2017 in terminating the services of Sh. 1.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
847
Laxman Gira, House Keeping worker, 2. Ashok P. Jadhav, House Keeping workers & 3. Ram B.
Zugare, Plumber/ helper w.e.f. 05.12.2017 who were employed in the establishment of NITIE
allegedly for the last 5 to 13 years, irrespective of the contractor changed from time to time, at the
behest of P.E. is just and proper. The concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Date: 18-12-2025
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 167.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार भारत के जनयाात जनरीक्षि ृररषि के जनिेिक (सूचना एवं गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि) और मजल्लकाजुान राव ,कमाचारी के
बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि-सह-श्रम न्यायालय, हजिराबाि ृंचाट (संिभा
सं्या-30/2009) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42012/9/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in The
Director (I & QC), Export Inspection Counsel of India and Mallikarjuna Rao workman.
[No. L-42012/9/2009-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 6th day of January 2026
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 30 OF 2009
Between:
A. Mallikarjuna Rao
….. Petitioner
AND
The Director (I & QC),
Export Inspection Counsel of India
And two others
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri K. Lakshman, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri M. Kiran Kumar, Advocate
848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/9/2009- (IR (DU) dated 22nd May
2009 referred the following Industrial dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, requiring this tribunal to
decide the question.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Export Inspection Agency, in terminating the services of their
workman Shri A. A. Mallikarjuna Rao with effect from 5th July 2008, is legal and justified? If not, what
relief is the workman entitled to?‖
2. After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No.30 of 2009, and notices were issued to both the workman
and management.
3. In response to the notice, Petitioner /workman filed the claim statement with the allegation that petitioner
joined with the Respondent on March, 2002 at Bheemavaram office of the Respondent, and continuously worked with
the respondent till 4th July 2008. Further, it is alleged that Respondent has terminated his services with effect from 5th
July 2008, without assigning any reason, and without issuing any charge sheet, and without conducting any inquiry.
Further, it is alleged that Respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner arbitrarily and illegally, in violation
of the procedure laid down under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, Petitioner alleged that he
requested the respondent to reinstate into the service, but all the efforts made by the petitioner became a futile
exercise. Therefore, petitioner was left with no other option but to raise a dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Central, Vijayawada, who, in turn, conducted joint conciliation meeting with the Respondent. The
conciliation officer could not arrive at an amicable settlement due to the non-cooperative and adamant attitude of the
Respondent. Therefore, the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent the report to the Government of India, and which has
been referred to the tribunal for adjudication.
4. Per contra, Respondent has filed counter, and therein, he has contended that the averment made in the
claim petition by the petitioner are frivolous, unwarranted, and illegal, and against the law. Further, it is submitted
that the claim statement is not maintainable as the Respondent is a Central Government department, statutory body
under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and as such, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to
try this suit. Further, it is contended that the Respondent is a statutory body established under section 7 of the Export
Quality Control and Inspection Act, 1963, and therefore, it is not covered within the definition of "industry" under the
Act. Further, Respondent contend that the services of A. Mallikarjuna Rao was utilized by S.O. Bheemavaram for few
hours a day on need basis, - part-time, intermittently, and wages were paid accordingly for the days he worked, and no
appointment letter was issued as the services were of a casual nature on an intermittent basis. Further, it is contended
that there was no work for him, and his services were discontinued by the S.O. Bheemavaram on 5th July 2008, as he
was no longer required. Hence, the question of termination or issuing of any charge sheet or conducting an inquiry
does not arise. Further, it is contended that Petitioner was not a regular employee of the Department. The question of
his claiming scale of pay, overtime, PF, etc., does not arise. He was utilized on need-based work only, and the
question of eliminating him from services does not arise. Further, it is contended that petitioner was never appointed
to any regular post in the Respondent, Export Inspection Agency, Chennai sub-office, Bhimavaram, and his services
were utilized on a need basis as and when work of an occasional and intermittent nature was available. Further, it is
contended that the services of the petitioner were utilized for a few hours a day on a need basis intermittently, and
wages were paid accordingly for the days he worked. He was not assigned the duties of Group D employees at any
point in time, as there was other permanent employees to look after the regular work that is assigned to Group D
employees. No appointment letter was ever issued, as the services were on an intermittent basis. Further, it is
contended that petitioner worked on need-based work, fully knowing he has been paid wages as applicable to need-
based work, and there was no contract between the petitioner and the Respondent that he would be regularized or paid
wages as is being paid to regularly appointed Group D employees. Therefore, petitioner may not equate his need-
based work with that of regular employees. Further, it is contended that as per Export Inspection Agency statutory
recruitment rules, 1980, amended up to 31st December 1986, the post of Group D (peon) is filled with a candidate
having an age between 18 to 25 years. Qualification: Middle school certificate and knowledge of reading
English/Hindi. The candidates who meet the requirements are called for an employment exchange, or through
newspaper advertisement. Such candidates are required to be considered by selection committee, which shall make
recommendations to the appointing authority regarding appointment or otherwise. And petitioner has not come in that
category. The petitioner neither applied for appointment nor was considered by the selection committee. Therefore, it
is prayed that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs.
In support of the averments made in the claim statement, the petitioner has examined witness WW1 and also
filed the documents, Exhibit W1 to W9. On the other hand, the Respondent has filed the documents in support of
contention the copies of statement of payment of part-time casual labor engagement for the years 2005 to 2006,
2007, and 2008.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
849
In view of the submissions made by either parties, the following issues arise for determination in the present
case: -
1. Whether the Respondent the direction ( I & A C) Export Inspection Council of India, is covered within the
definition of ―Industry‖ as provided under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the action of management of Export Inspection Agency, in terminating the services of workman, Shri A.
Mallikarjuna Rao, with effect from 5th July 2008, is legal and justified?
3. To what relief, if any, is workman entitled to?
Findings
Issue No. I:-
In this context, Respondent has submitted that the Respondent, Export Inspection Agency, Chennai, is a
regulatory authority operating under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the field of pre-shipment inspection of
notified commodities, and it was set up by the Central Government under Section 7 of the export, (quality control, and
inspection Act, 1963). Therefore, the claim statement is not maintainable as the Respondent is a Central Government
department, statutory body under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. And as such, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this dispute under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
In this context, Petitioner, in his chief statement affidavit, has nowhere stated that contention of Respondent
in the counter, that the Export Inspection Agency of Chennai is a regulatory and operational body, and it does not
come under the definition of "industry" as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, is incorrect: undisputedly
Respondent is governed by the Export, (quality control, inspection Act, 1963). And its main function is to ensure
quality control and pre-shipment inspection for goods being exported from India. Therefore, the Respondent Export
Inspection Council of India, is not covered under the definition of "industry" as provided under Section 2F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Export Inspection Counsel operate under the separate Act which focus on advising the
Government and ensure quality control for Export rather than its activities like inspection and certification are part of
its function as a statutory body for trade not industrial activity as defined under I.D Act 1947. industrial Disputes
Therefore, the claim statement of the petitioner raising industrial dispute is not maintainable under the provision of
Industrial Dispute Act. This issue is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.II:-
In this context, petitioner, in his claim statement, has alleged that he joined the service of the Respondent on
March 2002, at the Bhimavaram office, and worked till 4th July 2008, and his service has been terminated by reports
without assigning any reason in gross violation of the provision contained under Section 25F and 25N of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner has alleged that has termination order dated 5th July 2008 is illegal, liable to be set
aside. In support of his allegation. Petitioner has filed the affidavit of chief statement of his witness WW1. Therein
WW1 has reiterated the averment made in the claim statement. Whereas, in the cross-examination, WW1 has stated
that the Assistant director of Respondent management, Shri G. V. George, engaged him on duty and there was no
notification published for the post in any newspaper. Further, WW1 states that on the verbal request of the Assistant
director, he joined the work. Further, witness states that there was no designation for his post and no appointment
letter was issued to him. His name was not sponsored through the employment exchange. Further, the WW1 state that
he felt there was vacancy for four posts, and he may be absorbed in one post and he doesn't know whether the four
vacant posts were sanctioned or not. Further, WW1 witness states that he has made four representations to the
Chennai head office and also to the office bearer of the Respondent office in the year 2001, and he was paid Rs. 20/-
per day and later on he was paid Rs. 25/-, and Rs. 35/-, and lastly, he was getting Rs. 70/- per day. Further, the
witness states that it is not correct to say that the amount of Rs. 20/- was paid to him in the year 2001 for hourly basis.
The witness WW1 admitted that it is not an industry, but it is a central government agency, and there was no
manufacturing or production in the Respondent office. Thus, in view of the statement made by the witness WW1 in
his cross-examination, it manifests that the petitioner had worked as a daily wager in the Respondent office and he
was not issued any appointment letter for the post. The document filed by the petitioner in support of his allegation do
not support the averment of the petitioner that he was appointed in the Respondent office on Group D post. However,
petitioner has not filed any appointment letter, Attendance Register or salary slip in support of his averment that he
was appointed by the Respondent. The document exhibit W3, is a letter dated 26th December 2008, issued by the
Export Inspection Agency Chennai in respect of the representation of petitioner, A. Mallikarjuna Rao, it is mentioned
therein that the petitioner A. Mallikarjuna Rao had worked intermittently for a few hours a day on a daily basis, as
and when his services were required. Further, it is mentioned that no order of appointment was issued to A.
Mallikarjuna Rao at any point of time.
As regard the contention of the petitioner that he has been terminated by the Respondent from the
employment in gross violation of section 25F and 25N of the ID Act, Before examining the legality of termination of
Petitioner it would be apposite to mention the relevant provision contained under section 25F of the IT Act, as
extracted hereunder:-
850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 period of the
notice.
[xxx]
(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].
Further, in this context, Hon‘ble Court has laid down principles in respect of continuous service under the
provision contained under section 25F of the ID Act 1947 and also burden of proof these decision of Hon‘ble Court
are being discussed as here under:-
(a).Further, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This
claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in
the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that
cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant
had worked for 240 days in a year."
(b).In the case of Mohan Lal v. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225. Hon'ble Apex Court held:-
―Before a workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act he has to
show that he has been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from
service The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case also laid down the principle of how to count 240 days of service within
one year and held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one
year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered service
period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months for counting backwards and just preceding the relevant
date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is
necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as
retrenchment. After that date is ascertained move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of
retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the workman has rendered service for a
period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the workman pursuant to the deeming
fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the workman is in continuous service for a period of
one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F‘‘
(c).In the case of GM., BSNL and others V. Mahesh Chand AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1328, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court have held,
"It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then
for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence forany Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240
days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement
for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside."
(d). In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani AIR 2002 SC page 1147, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
have held,
"the onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of
receipt of salary or wages record of appointment, filing of an affidavit by workman is not sufficient evidence to prove
that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.‖
(e). In the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 the Hon'ble Apex Court have held,
"It was for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12
months' period."
(f). In the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas AIR 2004 SC 4681, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
have held:-
"that the burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12
months prior to his alleged retrenchment u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also held that it is
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
851
improbable that a person working in a Local Authority would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to
support his claim before the tr. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of
appointment and the remuneration received by him for working during the afore mentioned period. He even did not
examine any other witness in support of his case."
(g). In the case of Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and another Vs. Sham Lal, 2006 AIR SCW 3574, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court have held:
"Fact that workman had worked for 240 days or more in year immediately preceding termination Burden of proof
Burden is on workman not on employer-delay of nine years in seeking-no relief could be given to claimant."
Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S. Mani & Ors., on 14.3.2005 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2179 have held that, merely the
completion of 240 days of continuous service by the workmen by itself does not give rise to claim of permanence in
the employment Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that:-
"It may not be out of place to mention that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not
by itself be a ground for directing an order of regularization. It is also not the case of the Respondents that they were
appointed in accordance with the extant rules. No direction for regularization of their services was, therefore,
could be issued."
Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon‘ble Supreme Court and High Court, as discussed above let us
examine whether the petitioner has completed continuous service of 240 days in a 12-month of academic year just
preceding from the date of this termination, i.e., August 5th, 2008. The Perusal statement of payment to the petitioner
goes to reveal that work man was engaged as casual labor for the year 2005 to 2008, intermittently. Further, statement
of payment of July 2008 goes shows that the petitioner, A. Mallikarjuna Rao, was engaged in the month of July only
for 4 days, for which he has been paid wage of ₹30/- per day. Further, as per statement of payment in the month of
June 2008, petitioner, was engaged by the Respondent only for 6 days, and for which he was paid wages of ₹30/- per
day. Similarly, in the month of May 2008, the petitioner was paid wages of ₹30 per day for 12 days. Similarly, in the
month of April 2008, he has been engaged for 11 days but petitioner was not engaged continuously for the whole
month. Further, Petitioner was engaged in the months of March 2008, for only 4 days. In the month of February 2008
Petitioner was engaged for 10 days January 2008 for 17 days. Similarly in the month of December 2007 for 8 days
November 2007 for 14 days, October 2007 for 8 days, and September 2007 for 6 days and August 2007 for 12 days in
July 2007 for 10 days and in the month of June 2007 for 13 days. Thus, from the statement of payment of Petition it
goes to show that the workman, was engaged by the Respondent intermittently during the period from June 2007 to
May 2008 and has been paid wages @ ₹30 per day. Thus, from the above, it manifests that the petitioner has not
worked continuously for 240 days in the 12 months of a calendar year just preceding from date of his termination i.e
05.07.2008. Therefore, Petitioner has not fulfilled the condition precedent as enshrined u/s 25F of the I.D Act, and
not entitled for protection of the provisions contained against retrenchment there in.
Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that Respondent has terminated his services in violation of the provision
contained under Section 25(f) of the ID Act is not established and proved from the evidence on record. Therefore,
Petitioner is not entitled to for any compensation or notice pay or notice as per provision of section 25F of the Act.
Thus, the action of the Respondent management in terminating his services is not illegal. This issue is decided against
the petitioner, the workman.
Issue No. IV: -
In view of the finding given in issue No. II, the petitioner failed to prove that he was terminated in violation of the
provision contained under Section 25F of the ID Act. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any relief, and the
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
AWARD
The action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 05.07.2008 is held legal
and justified. Petition is devoid of merit hence stands dismissed. The Reference is answered.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 6th day of January 2026.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri A. Mallikarjuna Rao
MW1: Sri J.S. Reddy
852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 08.07.2008
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 30.09.2008
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 29.12.2008
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 29.01.2009
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of lr from Assistant Labour Commissioner dt:
06.02.2009
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of lr from export Inspection Agency, Chennai dt:
26.12.2008
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2005 January to December
Ex.M2: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2006 January to December
Ex.M3: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2007 January to December
Ex.M4: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2008 January to December
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 168.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार जनिेिक (सूचना एवं गुिवत्ता जनयंत्रि), जनयाात जनरीक्षि ृररषि, भारत और िो अन्य त ा ए.आर.वी.वी.
हनुमान,कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, हजिराबाि ृंचाट
(संिभा सं्या-31/2009) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42012/8/2009-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 168.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in The
Director (I & QC), Export Inspection Counsel of India and two others and A.R.V.V.Hanuman workman.
[No. L-42012/8/2009-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the13th day of November 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31 OF 2009
Between:
A.R.V.V. Hanuman
….. Petitioner
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
853
AND
The Director (I & QC),
Export Inspection Counsel Of India
And two others
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri K. Lakshman, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri M. Kiran Kumar, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-42012/8/2009- (IR (DU) dated 22nd May
2009 referred the following Industrial dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, requiring this tribunal to
decide the question.
SCHEDULE
―Whether the action of the management of Export Inspection Agency, in terminating the services of their
workman Shri A. Rama Veera Venkat Hanuman with effect from 5th July 2008, is legal and justified? If not,
what relief is the workman entitled to?‖
2. After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No.31 of 2009, and notices were issued to both the workman
and management.
3. In response to the notice, Petitioner /workman filed the claim statement with the allegation that petitioner
joined with the Respondent on 8th August 2021 at Bheemavaram office of the Respondent, and continuously worked
with the respondent till 4th July 2008. Further, it is alleged that Respondent has terminated his services with effect
from 5th July 2008, without assigning any reason, and without issuing any charge sheet, and without conducting any
inquiry. Further, it is alleged that Respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner arbitrarily and illegally, in
violation of the procedure laid down under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, Petitioner alleged that
he requested the respondent to reinstate into the service, but all the efforts made by the petitioner became a futile
exercise. Therefore, petitioner was left with no other option but to raise a dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Central, Vijayawada, who, in turn, conducted joint conciliation meeting with the Respondent. The
conciliation officer could not arrive at an amicable settlement due to the non-cooperative and adamant attitude of the
Respondent. Therefore, the Assistant Labour Commissioner sent the report to the Government of India, and which has
been referred to the tribunal for adjudication.
4. Per contra, Respondent has filed counter, and therein, he has contended that the averment made in the
claim petition by the petitioner are frivolous, unwarranted, and illegal, and against the law. Further, it is submitted
that the claim statement is not maintainable as the Respondent is a Central Government department, statutory body
under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and as such, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to
try this suit. Further, it is contended that the Respondent is a statutory body established under section 7 of the Export
Quality Control and Inspection Act, 1963, and therefore, it is not covered within the definition of "industry" under the
Act. Further, Respondent contend that the services of A.R.V.V. Hanuman was utilized by S.O. Bheemavaram for few
hours a day on need basis, - part-time, intermittently, and wages were paid accordingly for the days he worked, and no
appointment letter was issued as the services were of a casual nature on an intermittent basis. Further, it is contended
that there was no work for him, and his services were discontinued by the S.O. Bheemavaram on 5th July 2008, as he
was no longer required. Hence, the question of termination or issuing of any charge sheet or conducting an inquiry
does not arise. Further, it is contended that Petitioner was not a regular employee of the Department. The question of
his claiming scale of pay, overtime, PF, etc., does not arise. He was utilized on need-based work only, and the
question of eliminating him from services does not arise. Further, it is contended that petitioner was never appointed
to any regular post in the Respondent, Export Inspection Agency, Chennai sub-office, Bhimavaram, and his services
were utilized on a need basis as and when work of an occasional and intermittent nature was available. Further, it is
contended that the services of the petitioner were utilized for a few hours a day on a need basis intermittently, and
wages were paid accordingly for the days he worked. He was not assigned the duties of Group D employees at any
point in time, as there was other permanent employees to look after the regular work that is assigned to Group D
employees. No appointment letter was ever issued, as the services were on an intermittent basis. Further, it is
contended that petitioner worked on need-based work, fully knowing he has been paid wages as applicable to need-
based work, and there was no contract between the petitioner and the Respondent that he would be regularized or paid
wages as is being paid to regularly appointed Group D employees. Therefore, petitioner may not equate his need-
based work with that of regular employees. Further, it is contended that as per Export Inspection Agency statutory
recruitment rules, 1980, amended up to 31st December 1986, the post of Group D (peon) is filled with a candidate
having an age between 18 to 25 years. Qualification: Middle school certificate and knowledge of reading
854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
English/Hindi. The candidates who meet the requirements are called for an employment exchange, or through
newspaper advertisement. Such candidates are required to be considered by selection committee, which shall make
recommendations to the appointing authority regarding appointment or otherwise. And petitioner has not come in that
category. The petitioner neither applied for appointment nor was considered by the selection committee. Therefore, it
is prayed that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs.
In support of the averments made in the claim statement, the petitioner has examined witness WW1 and also
filed the documents, Exhibit W1 to W9. On the other hand, the Respondent has filed the documents in support of
contention the copies of statement of payment of part-time casual labor engagement for the years 2005 to 2006, 2007,
and 2008.
In view of the submissions made by either parties, the following issues arise for determination in the present
case: -
1. Whether the Respondent the direction ( I & A C) Export Inspection Council of India, is covered within the
definition of ―Industry‖ as provided under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the action of management of Export Inspection Agency, in terminating the services of workman,
Shri A. Rama vera Venkat Hanuman, with effect from 5th July 2008, is legal and justified?
3. To what relief, if any, is workman entitled to?
Findings
Issue No. I:-
In this context, Respondent has submitted that the Respondent, Export Inspection Agency, Chennai, is a
regulatory authority operating under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the field of pre-shipment inspection of
notified commodities, and it was set up by the Central Government under Section 7 of the export, (quality control, and
inspection Act, 1963). Therefore, the claim statement is not maintainable as the Respondent is a Central Government
department, statutory body under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. And as such, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this dispute under the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
In this context, Petitioner, in his chief statement affidavit, has nowhere stated that contention of Respondent
in the counter, that the Export Inspection Agency of Chennai is a regulatory and operational body and it does not
come under the definition of "industry" as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, is incorrect: undisputedly
Respondent is governed by the Export, (quality control, inspection Act, 1963). And its main function is to ensure
quality control and pre-shipment inspection for goods being exported from India. Therefore, the Respondent Export
Inspection Council of India, is not covered under the definition of "industry" as provided under Section 2F of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Export Inspection Counsel operate under the separate Act which focus on advising the
Government and ensure quality control for Export rather than its activities like inspection and certification are part of
its function as a statutory body for trade not industrial activity as defined under I.D Act 1947. industrial Disputes
Therefore, the claim statement of the petitioner raising industrial dispute is not maintainable under the provision of
Industrial Dispute Act. This issue is decided against the petitioner.
Issue No.II:-
In this context, petitioner, in his claim statement, has alleged that he joined the service of the Respondent on
8th August 2001, at the Bhimavaram office, and worked till 4th July 2008, and his service has been terminated by
reports without assigning any reason in gross violation of the provision contained under Section 25F and 25N of the
Industrial Disputes Act. Petitioner has alleged that has termination order dated 5th July 2008 is illegal, liable to be set
aside. In support of his allegation. Petitioner has filed the affidavit of chief statement of his witness WW1. Therein
WW1 has reiterated the averment made in the claim statement. Whereas, in the cross-examination, WW1 has stated
that the Assistant director of Respondent management, Shri G. V. George, engaged him on duty and there was no
notification published for the post in any newspaper. Further, WW1 states that on the verbal request of the Assistant
director, he joined the work. Further, witness states that there was no designation for his post and no appointment
letter was issued to him. His name was not sponsored through the employment exchange. Further, the WW1 state that
he felt there was vacancy for four posts, and he may be absorbed in one post and he doesn't know whether the four
vacant posts were sanctioned or not. Further, WW1 witness states that he has made four representations to the
Chennai head office and also to the office bearer of the Respondent office in the year 2001, and he was paid Rs. 20/-
per day and later on he was paid Rs. 25/-, and Rs. 35/-, and lastly, he was getting Rs. 70/- per day. Further, the
witness states that it is not correct to say that the amount of Rs. 20/- was paid to him in the year 2001 for hourly basis.
The witness WW1 admitted that it is not an industry, but it is a central government agency, and there was no
manufacturing or production in the Respondent office. Thus, in view of the statement made by the witness WW1 in
his cross-examination, it manifest that the petitioner had worked as a daily wager in the Respondent office and he was
not issued any appointment letter for the post. The document filed by the petitioner in support of his allegation do not
support the averment of the petitioner that he was appointed in the Respondent office on Group D post. However,
petitioner has not filed any appointment letter, Attendance Register or salary slip in support of his averment that he
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
855
was appointed by the Respondent. The document exhibit W3, is a letter dated 26th December 2008, issued by the
Export Inspection Agency Chennai in respect of the representation of petitioner, A.R.V.V Hanuman, it is mentioned
therein that the petitioner A.R.V.V Hanuman had worked intermittently for a few hours a day on a daily basis, as and
when his services were required. Further, it is mentioned that no order of appointment was issued to Hanuman at any
point of time.
As regard the contention of the petitioner that he has been terminated by the Respondent from the
employment in gross violation of section 25F and 25N of the ID Act, Before examining the legality of termination of
Petitioner it would be apposite to mention the relevant provision contained under section 25F of the IT Act, as
extracted hereunder:-
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 period of the
notice.
[xxx]
(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].
Further, in this context, Hon‘ble Court has laid down principles in respect of continuous service under the
provision contained under section 25F of the ID Act 1947 and also burden of proof these decision of Hon‘ble Court
are being discussed as here under:-
(a).Further, in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This
claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in
the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that
cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant
had worked for 240 days in a year."
(b).In the case of Mohan Lal v. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225. Hon'ble Apex Court held:-
―Before a workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act he has to
show that he has been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from
service The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case also laid down the principle of how to count 240 days of service within
one year and held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a workman in continuous service for a period of one
year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period of one year but he has rendered service
period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months for counting backwards and just preceding the relevant
date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is
necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination of service which is complained of as
retrenchment. After that date is ascertained move backward to a period of 12 months just preceding the date of
retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the workman has rendered service for a
period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the workman pursuant to the deeming
fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the workman is in continuous service for a period of
one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F‘‘
(c).In the case of GM., BSNL and others V. Mahesh Chand AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1328, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court have held,
"It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then
for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as
sufficient evidence forany Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240
days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement
for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside."
(d). In the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S T Hadimani AIR 2002 SC page 1147, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
have held,
"the onus lies upon claimant to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of
receipt of salary or wages record of appointment, filing of an affidavit by workman is not sufficient evidence to prove
that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination.‖
856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(e). In the case of Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar, AIR 2003 SC 38 the Hon'ble Apex Court have held,
"It was for the employee concerned to prove that he has in fact completed 240 days in the last preceding 12
months' period."
(f). In the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas AIR 2004 SC 4681, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
have held:-
"that the burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12
months prior to his alleged retrenchment u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also held that it is
improbable that a person working in a Local Authority would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to
support his claim before the tr. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of
appointment and the remuneration received by him for working during the afore mentioned period. He even did not
examine any other witness in support of his case."
(g). In the case of Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and another Vs. Sham Lal, 2006 AIR SCW 3574, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court have held:
"Fact that workman had worked for 240 days or more in year immediately preceding termination Burden of proof
Burden is on workman not on employer-delay of nine years in seeking-no relief could be given to claimant."
Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S. Mani & Ors., on 14.3.2005 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2179 have held that, merely the
completion of 240 days of continuous service by the workmen by itself does not give rise to claim of permanence in
the employment Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that:-
"It may not be out of place to mention that completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year may not
by itself be a ground for directing an order of regularization. It is also not the case of the Respondents that they were
appointed in accordance with the extant rules. No direction for regularization of their services was, therefore,
could be issued."
Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon‘ble Supreme Court and High Court, as discussed above let us
examine whether the petitioner has completed continuous service of 240 days in a 12-month of academic year just
preceding from the date of this termination, i.e., August 5th, 2008. The Perusal statement of payment to the petitioner
goes to reveal that work man was engaged as casual labor for the year 2005 to 2008, intermittently. Further, statement
of payment of July 2008 goes shows that the petitioner, A.R.V.V. Hanuman, was engaged in the month of July only
for 3 days, for which he has been paid wage of ₹70/- per day. Further, as per statement of payment in the month of
June 2008, petitioner, was engaged by the Respondent only for 12 days, and for which he was paid wages of ₹70/- per
day. Similarly, in the month of May 2008, the petitioner was paid wages of ₹70 per day for 18 days. Similarly, in the
month of April 2008, he has been engaged for 18 days but petitioner was not engaged continuously for the whole
month. Further, he has been engaged in the months of March 2008, for 12 days February 2008, for 17 days January
2008, for 15 days December 2007, for 8 days November 2007for 14 days , October 2007 for 15 days , and
September 2007 for 8 days and August 2007 for 13 days and July 2007 for 11 days June 2007 for 13 days. Thus,
aforementioned statement of payment goes to show that the workman, was engaged by the respondent intermittently
the for the period from June 2007 to May 2008 and has been paid wages @ ₹70 per day. Thus, from the above, it
manifests that the petitioner has not worked continuously for 240 days in a said 12 month of a calendar year just
preceding the date of his termination i.e., 05.07.2008. Therefore, Petitioner has not fulfilled the condition precedent as
enshrined u/s 25f of the I.D Act, and not entitled for protection of the provision contained against retrenchment
therein.
Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that Respondent has been terminated him from services in violation of
the provision contained under Section 25(f) of the ID Act is not established and proved from the evidence on record.
Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to for any compensation or notice pay or notice as per provision of section 25F of
the Act. Thus, the action of the respondent management in terminating his services is not illegal. This issue is decided
against the petitioner, the workman.
Issue No. IV:-
In view of the finding given in issue No. II, the petitioner failed to prove that he was terminated in violation of the
provision contained under Section 25F of the ID Act. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any relief, and the
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
AWARD
The action of the Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 05.07.2008 is held legal
and justified. Petition is devoid of merit hence stands dismissed. The Reference is answered.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this
the 13th day of November 2025.
IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
857
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
WW1: Sri A.R.V.V. Hanuman
MW1: Sri J.S. Reddy
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.W1: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 08.07.2008
Ex.W2: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 30.09.2008
Ex.W3: Photostat copy of lr from export Inspection Agency, Chennai dt:
26.12.2008
Ex.W4: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 29.12.2008
Ex.W5: Photostat copy of Minutes of Meeting dt: 29.01.2009
Ex.W6: Photostat copy of lr from Assistant Labour Commissioner dt:
06.02.2009
Ex.W7: Photostat copy of lr from Private Secretary of Minister for state for
External Affairs
Documents marked for the Respondent
Ex.M1: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2005 January to December
Ex.M2: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2006 January to December
Ex.M3: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2007 January to December
Ex.M4: Photostat copy of statement of payment of part time casual labour
Engagement for the year 2008 January to December
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 169.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार कुलृजत, जाजमया जमजलया इस्ट्लाजमया जवश्वजवद्यालय, ओखला, नई दिल्ली, मेससा िमाा एंटरप्राइजेज, नवािा,
नई दिल्ली और श्री दिनेि कुमार कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय, दिल्ली-1, नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या-100/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज।
[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/02आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 169.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 100/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court Delhi-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
Kulpati, Jamia Milia Islamia University, Okhla, New Delhi, M/s Sharma Enterprises, Navada, New Delhi and
Shri Dinesh Kumar workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/02-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.100/2024
Shri Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bhoole Ram, Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) 170, Bal Mukund
Khand, Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
…Claimant
Versus
1.
Kulpati, Jamia Milia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2.
M/s Sharma Enterprises, 92B, Plot No.1, Ground Floor, Navada, Near Navada Metro Station, New Delhi-
110059.
…Management
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/II-
10/2024-IR dated 09.04.2024 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for
adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
‘Whether the services of contract workman Shri Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhuleram, Ex-Safai Karamchari
have been terminated illegally and/or justifiably by the management of M/s Sharma Enterprises
contractor of Jamia Milia Islamia University w.e.f. 01.10.2020? And if so, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?’
Sh. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi etc.
2.
In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete
with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal within fifteen days of receipt of the
reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the dispute.
Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file the claim statement with the Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. In pursuance
to the notices sent, counsel for the claimant appeared on one occasion. No claim statement was filed on behalf of
workman despite repeated adjournments. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Dispute/Claim‘ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
for publication.
Date: 06.01.2026
AJAY KUMAR JAIN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 170.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार कुलृजत, जाजमया जमजलया इस्ट्लाजमया जवश्वजवद्यालय, ओखला, नई दिल्ली, मेससा िमाा एंटरप्राइजेज, नवािा,
नई दिल्ली और श्री जजतन कुमार कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम
न्यायालय, दिल्ली-1, नई दिल्ली ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या-101/2024) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित
करती हज।
[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/01आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
859
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 170.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 101/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court Delhi-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in
Kulpati, Jamia Milia Islamia University, Okhla, New Delhi, M/s Sharma Enterprises, Navada, New Delhi and
Shri Jatin Kumar workman.
[No. L-42025/07/2026/01-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,
NEW DELHI.
ID No.101/2024
Shri Jatin Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish, Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) 170, Bal Mukund Khand,
Giri Nagar, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.
…Claimant
Versus
1.
Kulpati, Jamia Milia Islamia University, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2.
M/s Sharma Enterprises, 92B, Plot No.1, Ground Floor, Navada, Near Navada Metro Station,
New Delhi-110059.
…Management
AWARD
1.
In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/II-
11/2024-IR dated 09.04.2024 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for
adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:
SCHEDULE
‘Whether the services of contract workman Shri Jatin Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish, Ex-Safai Karamchari
have been terminated illegally and/or justifiably by the management of M/s Sharma Enterprises
contractor of Jamia Milia Islamia University w.e.f. 01.10.2020? And if so, to what relief the workman
concerned is entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?’
Sh. Jatin Kumar Vs. Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi etc.
2.
In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the
dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal
within fifteen days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite
parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file the claim statement with the
Tribunal.
3.
On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. In pursuance
to the notices sent, counsel for the claimant appeared on one occasion. No claim statement was filed on behalf of
workman despite repeated adjournments. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the
reference on merits.
4.
In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Dispute/Claim‘ award. Let
this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
for publication.
Date: 06.01.2026
AJAY KUMAR JAIN, Presiding Officer
860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 171.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार बीएसएनएल के िूरसंचार जजला महाप्रबंिक, ृजिम गोिावरी जजला, एलुरु, आंध्र प्रिेि और जजला
सजचव,बीएसएनएल वकासा के राष्ट्रीय संघ (एफएनटीओ), कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक
अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय, हजिराबाि ृंचाट (संिभा सं्या-110/2014) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज,
प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-40011/06/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 171.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.110/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum
Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in The
General Manager, Telecom District., BSNL , West Godavari District, ELURU, A.P. and The District Secretary,
National Union of BSNL Workers (FNTO), workman.
[No. L-40011/06/2014-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVBERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
Present: Sri IRFAN QAMAR
Presiding Officer
Dated the 14th day of November 2025
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 110 of 2014
Between:
The District Secretary,
National Union of BSNL Workers (FNTO),
West Godavari District Branch,
ELURU, A.P. The District Secretary,
….. Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
Telecom District., BSNL,
Eluru, West Godavari District.,
ELURU, A.P.
…. Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner :
Sri William Burra, Advocate
For the Respondent:
Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
861
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 40011/06/2014(IR(DU) dated 2nd June
2014 has referred the following Industrial dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this forum to
decide the question.
SCHEDULE
1.―Whether the demand of workmen of BSNL, Eluru is legal and justified. If not, what other relief the
workmen are entitled to?"
2. After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID No.110 of 2014, and notices were issued to both the
workmen and the management.
3. On the service of notice Petitioner has filed claim statement whereas Respondent has filed counter. In the claim
statement Petitioner union has alleged that the Respondent Management showing partisans attitude against the
Petitioner Union and ill treatment to member of the Petitioner union and some other unrecognized union while N.F.T.
E union is the recognized union. The member of the N.F.T.E union are shown undue favoritism in posting their
members at comfortable places according to wishes of the recognize union whereas the Petitioner union members are
facing ill treatment from the Respondent Management. Further, Petitioner has made reference of two instances for the
alleged partisans attitude of Respondent Management.
Firstly, Petitioner alleged that S. Durga Rao Telecom Mechanic Eluru got fracture his leg during the out
door duties and he was given indoor duties on this ground at MDF station Telephone Bhavan Eluru, Surprisingly he
has been transferred to perform outdoor duties vide order dated 31-07-2013 in order to accommodate M.
Yesuratnam, who belonged to NFTE Union. Further, it is alleged that the transfer order of S. Durga Rao issued on 31-
07-2013 which was the retirement date of the Respondent GM to show favors to M. Yesuratnam without assigning
any reason. The Respondent Management consider similar cases sympathetically whereas in the case of Durga Rao,
he was forced to take voluntary retirement, as he was unable to perform his outdoor duties. Further, other instance of
the workman has been referred who has been accommodated belongs to recognize union. The second instance to
show the partisans attitude of management with claim statement has been referred by the Petitioner that Smt A Mary
Grace belongs to Petitioner union and she passed intermediate and was posted in the office of GM instead of utilizing
her services in the administrative office and she has been transferred frequently and at present she is entrusted the
duty of watchwoman further it is alleged that she is being harassed and forced to be on duty till 10 PM daily. Shri A.
Mary Grace made several requests to the union and also made several requests to management by in vain. Whereas
the woman workman belonging recognize union has been accommodated on the comfortable posting.
Further it is submitted that women employee belonging to Group D services were promoted as GMs and
TMs and are supposed to posted for outdoor duties. However, they are accommodated in the GM‘s office working as
‗Group D employees but drawing salaries as TMs. But in the case of Smt. A. Jayasree, Test Category Group D was
transferred from GM office to MDF Telephone Bhavan to work on par with other TMs. As the Smt. A. Jayasree
belongs to the Petitioner union she has been transferred to the GM office. Further Petitioner alleges that the union
raise the disputes before the Asst. Labour Commissioner for redressal of the grievances of the employees in general
such as issues periodicals like Soaps, towels chappals etc., to the members of the staff though they are entitled to
similarly night allowances implementation of the tenure transfer repairs to pump sets water facilities at telephone
building and all above the welfare facilities are required to be provided by Respondent management and when the
same are not provided the Petitioner Union take up the issue for discussion before the ALC Vijayawada /RLC
Hyderabad to maintain the efficient working of the employees. The union therefore prayed that Respondent be
directed to provide TA and DA to the president secretary of the Petitioner Union and also direct the Respondent
management to teach all the employees on an equal footing, irrespective of their affiliation with union, in the matter
of transfers.
4. Per contra Respondent has filed counter, and therein, it is contended that all material allegations made in
the claim statement except that are admitted hereunder are denied. Further, it is contended that the respondent denies
the allegation made by the petitioner that the Respondent management is showing partisan attitude against the
members of the petitioner union and showing favoritism to the members of recognized union. The action of transfers,
and allotment of work, and giving allowances etc. are as per the rules in force. Further, Respondent contended that
management has shown the partition attitude against the transfer of S. Durgha Rao. Further, it is contended that after
the fracture in the leg of Durga Rao, he was given the indoor duty at MDF Eluru. Respondent contended that there
was acute shortage in TM cadre in outdoor plant at Eluru, and due to a shortage of outdoor TMs, there was a setback
in rending services to the customer. The petitioner, S Durga Rao TM Eluru, has requested a one-year exemption from
outdoor duties hence, he was posted to indoor duties. He served in indoor duty for more than 24 years before the issue
of the local transfer to an outdoor unit. His stay in indoor duties is more than stay of others at the telephone exchange,
Eluru. The official retired voluntarily on 1st February 2014.
862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Further, Respondent contended that he specifically denies the allegation made by the petitioner that
Smt. T. Jayasree Grade D, is being transferred frequently, and entrusted watch woman duties, and was harassed to do
duty till 10 PM daily for the reason that she belongs to member of the petitioner union. The respondent submits that
Smt. T. Jayasree Grade D was initially posted in the office of G M T D, Eluru. Subsequently she was posted to H D E
Urban Eluru for watch woman duties. Later on request of T. Jayasree Grade D, she was transferred from watch
woman duties to indoor duties at Main Telephone Exchange. Therefore, the action of respondent is in accordance
with the rules in force, mainly considering the request of the said employee. Each of the material allegation made by
the petitioner is specifically denied. Further Respondent contended that, there is no rule prescribed for settlement of
the payment of T A / D A to the representative of the union on par with the management representative for attending
the conciliation meeting at Assistant Commissioner of Labour, and hence the said demand was not considered.
Further Respondent contended that the demand of supply of tool bag, periodical arrangement, are being given as per
the schedule and being continued subject to availability of the funds. At present there is no round the clock duties for
the cadre of T.M.S. and T.T.A.X., hence the night duty allowances are not being paid. Further, respondent contended,
repair of the pump set are being taken up immediately and temporary arrangement during repairs are also made for
provision of the water facility at Telephone Buildings. The Respondent specifically denies the allegation made by the
petitioner that the Respondent management is supporting the recognize union and working against the interest of the
workmen. This Respondent submits that management acts as per the rules and policies and guidelines from the circle
of and do not show any partisan attitude and favoritism to any member of union as contended by the petitioner.
Further it is contended that there is no ruling for payment of T A / D A to representative of the union on par with the
management representative for attending the conciliation meeting. Assistant Labour Commissioner, hence, the
demand was not considered by the respondents.
Respondent prayed to dismiss the petition. petitioner in oral evidence chief statement affidavit of K.S.R.
Murthy, as WW1 and has also filed documents as per list from 1 to 18. Petitioner has also filed written argument.
on the basis of the pleadings of either parties, following issues emerge for determination in the
present case: -
1. whether the demand of workman BSNL, Eluru is legal and justified?
2. To what relief, if any, the workman are entitled to?
Finding
Issue No. I :-
In this context, petitioner has filed chief statement affidavit of the witness WW1 and witness in his affidavit has
reiterated the allegations made in the petition. This witness has also exhibited the documents. This witness, para 7 of
affidavit has stated that he rely on the documents filed on 16th December 2016, by the petitioner, and the same may
be marked as Exhibits WW1 to WW9. But this witness has not stated in his affidavit that what facts he is going to
establish by these documents. Thus, the contents of the document are not roved by evidence of WW1. Moreover,
this witness, despites sufficient opportunity, did not turn up for cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of the
petitioner was closed by the court after affording the sufficient number of opportunities. In the absence of cross-
examination of witness WW1, the evidence of this witness cannot be read in evidence as per the principle of
evidence. Therefore, Petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation by any, oral or documentary evidence.
However, as regard the allegation of the petitioner that Sri S. Durga Rao, T.A. Eluru, and Smt. A. Mary
Grace have been transferred due to partisan attitude of Respondent management, Petitioner has failed to substantiate
his allegation by any cogent and reliable relevant evidence that the action of the Respondent management in
transferring these workmen was mala fide or in contravention of the certified standing orders or employment
contract, or either it resulted in a change of service condition. However, as regard the demand of TA/DA, that has
been declined by the respondent management, as shown in the minutes of the conciliation proceeding held on 5th
February 2024. The demand has been discussed and declined before the Assistant Labor Commissioner 10,
Therefore, Petitioner has utterly failed to prove the allegation of claim statement by any relevant evidence. Thus, the
demand raised by the workmen petitioners of BSNL, Eluru, is not legal and justified. Issue is decided against the
petition Workman.
Issue No. II:-
In view of the findings given at Issue No. I, the demands of the workmen of BSNL, Eluru, are not justified
and legal. Therefore, petitioner workmen are not entitled to any relief. The petition, sans merit, and is liable to be
dismissed.
AWARD
The demand of the workmen of petitioner BSNL, Eluru, is held not legal and justified. The petition claim
statement of the Petitioner, sans merit, hence dismissed reference is answered accordingly. Award is passed
accordingly.
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
863
Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this 14th
November 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 दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 172.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरि में, केन्रीय
सरकार मेससा कुिांग जसजयोररटी एंड प्रोटेजिन सर्ववसेज, मुंबई, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट ऑफ इंडजस्ट्रयल इंजीजनयररग
(एनआईटीआईई), जनिेिक, एनआईटीआईई, जवहार लेक, मुंबई और सजचव, मुंबई श्रजमक संघ, मुंबई कमाचारी के बीच
अनुबंि में जनर्दिष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरि- सह- श्रम न्यायालय- 2 मुंबई,ृंचाट(संिभा सं्या- (CGIT-2/27
of 2019)) को जजसा दक अनुलिक में दिखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज।
[सं. एल-42011/51/2019 -आईआर (डीयू)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 11th February, 2026
S.O. 172.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. (CGIT-2/27 of 2019) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers
in M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services, Mumbai, National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE)The Director, NITIE, Vihar Lake, Mumbai and The Secretary ,Mumbai Shramik Sangh, Mumbai
workman.
[No. L-42011/51/2019-IR (DU)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
ANNEXURE
BEFORE JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD PRESIDING
OFFICER/LINK OFFICER
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE RETIRED SHIV SHANKER PRASAD
Presiding Officer/Link Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/27 of 2019
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF
864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Party No.1
M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services
760, Ambikawadi, Saltpan Road,
Wadala (E), Mumbai 400037.
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE)
The Director, NITIE, Vihar Lake,
Po- NITIE,
Mumbai 400087.
AND
THEIR WORKMN.
Party No. 2
(Mumbai Shramik Sangh)
The Secretary,
Mumbai Shramik Sangh, Sangharsh Quarry Road,
Bhandup (W),
Mumbai- 400 078.
APPEARANCES:
Management No.1
No appearance
Management No.2
:
Mr. N. G. Helekar
Advocate
Workmen
:
No appearance.
AWARD
(Delivered on 18-12-2025)
1.
This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India,
Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-42011/51/2019 (IR(DU) dated 02.05.2019. The terms
of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services a contractor
employed in the establishment of NITIE w.e.f. 01.06.2017 in terminating the services of Sh. 1. Rajaram
Raul, office attendant, 2. Praful Pednekar office boy w.e.f. 01.11.2017, 3. Subhas Palav, Officer attendant
w.e.f. 17.11.2017 allegedly at the behest of P.E./ NITIE who were employed in the establishment of NITIE
allegedly for the last 5 to 10 years, irrespective of the contractor changed from time to time, is just and
proper? If not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”
2.
The case is called out today. Mr. Akhilesh Adhav holding brief of the learned counsel Mr. N. G. Helekar is
present before the court on behalf of the respondent no.2. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner as well as
respondent no.1 despite service of notices. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not
responding and attending the Court since 19.10.2023 long back Although, Statement of Claim has been filed by the
petitioner but no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his case. One application dated 18.12.2025
has been moved by the respondent no.2 for dismissal of the case in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner is
not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner is not interested to contest the case
furthermore. The claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.
Hence, it is ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Kushang Security & Protection Services a contractor employed in the
establishment of NITIE w.e.f. 01.06.2017 in terminating the services of Sh. 1. Rajaram Raul, office attendant, 2.
Praful Pednekar office boy w.e.f. 01.11.2017, 3. Subhas Palav, Officer
attendant w.e.f. 17.11.2017 allegedly at the behest of P.E./ NITIE who were employed in the establishment of
NITIE allegedly for the last 5 to 10 years, irrespective of the contractor changed from time to time, is just and
proper. The concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.
Date: 18-12-2025
Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
865
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 173.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksVk ds iapkV [Ref.16/2009( CIS- 92/2014] (CNR CRJKT 06000 1772009)
izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12012/53/2009-आईआर (बी-II)]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th February, 2026
S.O. 173.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref.16/2009( CIS-92/2014] (CNR-RJKT060001772009) of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Central Bank of India and their workmen
[No. L-12012/53/2009- IR(B-II)]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] vkS|ksfxd U;k;kf/kdj.k¼dsUnzh;½dksVk]¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh& lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,p-ts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
funsZ'k izdj.k dzekad%vkS-U;k-¼dsUnzh;½&16@2009¼lhvkbZ,l&92@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001772009½
fnukad LFkkfir%09-11-2009
izlax% Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds vkns'k dz- ,y&12012@53@2009 ¼vkbZvkj¼ch&kk½½ fnukad% 13-10-2009 ,oa lifBr
'kqf)i= fn-%05-09-2018
funsZ'k@fookn vUrxZr /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e]1947
e/;
fnus'k pan ifjgkj iq= Jh enuyky] fuoklh& ifjgkj dkWQh gkml] eaxyiqjk] >kykokM+
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
,oa
{ks=h; izca/kd] lSUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] jhtuy vkWfQl] ,ech,l gkWLihVy ds lkeus] flfoy ykbZUl] dksVk
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh vfer 'kekZ
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh ,l-ih- lksjy
%%vf/kfu.kZ;%%
fnukad%08-07-2025
Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 13-10-2009 ds tfj;s funsZ'k fookn]
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼ftls vkxs **vf/kfu;e** ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh /kkjk 10¼1½¼?k½ ,oa mi/kkjk 2¼d½ ds vUrxZr bl
U;k;kf/kdj.k dks vf/kfu.kZ;kFkZ izkIr gqvk gS ftlds mijkar fn- 05-09-2018 dk 'kqf)i= izkIr gqvk ftlds vuqlkj "w.e.f. November,
2006" ds LFkku ij "w.e.f. 30 November, 2006" fd;k x;k gS vc la'kks/kuksijkUr jsQzsUl fuEukuqlkj gks tkrk gS%&
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Kota in terminating the services
of Shri Dinesh Chand Parihar S/o Shri Madal Lal w.e.f. 30th November, 2006 is legal and justified? What
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2&
mDr fookn] U;k;kf/kdj.k esa jsQj gksus ij iathc) dj i{kdkjksa dks mifLFkfr ckcr uksfVl tkjh fd, x,A uksfVl dh ikyuk esa
izkFkhZ Jfed }kjk mifLFkr gksdj LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k izLrqr dj laf{kIrr% ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mls] vizkFkhZ us
vius {ks=kf/kdkj esa fLFkr vxz.kh cSad vf/kdkjh] >kykokM+ ds ;gka fnukad 01-12-1988 ls MªkbZoj ds in ij fu;qfDr fd;k vkSj >kykokM+ dk
25@&:- izfrfnu o ckgj dk 30@&:- izfrfnfu ds fglkc ls osru dk Hkqxrku vxz.kh cSad vf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dk
LFkkukUrj.k tqykbZ 1989 esa fu;kstd ds ;gka gh {ks=h; izca/kd] dksVk dh dkj pykus ds fy, dj fn;kA iqu% ekpZ 2003 esa izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k
fu;kstd ds >kykokM+ fLFkr vxz.kh cSad dk;kZy; dh thi pykus ds fy, dj fn;k x;k mlds ckn o"kZ 2005 esa vxz.kh cSad dk;kZy; ckjka dh
thi pykus ds fy, izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k ckjka dj fn;k x;k vkSj uoEcj 2006 esa izkFkhZ dks ;kfu fnukad 30-11-2006 ls ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k
x;k gS tks voS/k gS] ftldk ek= dkj.k ;g gS fd izkFkhZ us jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa jsxwyj djus gsrq fu;kstd ds fo:) ;kfpdk izLrqr dju
nh Fkh ftlls fu;kstd izkFkhZ ls ukjkt gks x;kA ftl okgu ij izkFkhZ dh M~;wVh yxkbZ gqbZ Fkh og okgu fu;kstd dk Fkk ijUrq fu;kstd izkFkhZ
dks ftl vf/kdkjh dks cSad dh xkM+h vkoafVr dh gqbZ Fkh ml vf/kdkjh dk deZpkjh ekurk Fkk tcfd osru Hkh cSad ds }kjk gh izkFkhZ dks Hkqxrku
fd;k tkrk FkkA tc izkFkhZ dks osru c<+k;k tkrk Fkk ;k vU; dksbZ lqfo/kk c<+kbZ tkrh Fkh rks og fu;kstd ds ldwZyj ds }kjk gh c<+kbZ tkrh Fkh
rFkk tks MªkbZoj vf/kdfj;ksa dh xkM+h dks pykrs Fks mUgsa fu;fer djus ds fy, vkns'k Hkh nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkkafr osdsalh fudkydj
fu;ferdj.k fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds ;gka fn- 01-12-1988 ls 30-11-2006 ds e/;kUg i'pkr rd 240 fnu ls dkQh vf/kd rd
dk;Z fd;k gSA izkFkhZ ;g fookn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼vks-vks-½ ds varxZr NaVuh dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrk gSA fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVkrs
le; uksfVl] uksfVl osru o NaVuh eqvkotk ugha nsdj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 ,Q] izkFkhZ dks gVkrs le; mlls dfu"B MªkbZojksa lqjsUnz dqekj]
Hkxoku dks fu;kstu esa j[kdj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 25 th dh vogsyuk dh gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr e;
leLr fiNys ykHkksa ds lsok ij cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
3& vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls mDr Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks dHkh Hkh o fdlh le; cSad lsok esa
HkrhZ ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ ds e/; Jfed o fu;kstd dks laca/k esa Hkh dHkh ugha jgk gSA fdlh Hkh Jfed dks fu;kstu izfdz;k vkfn
dk voyksdu djus ds i'pkr o ;ksX; ik, tkus ij gh fu;ksftr fd;k tk ldrk gSA vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk izkFkhZ dks dksbZ Hkh osru ugha fn;k x;k
gSA tc izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ }kjk fu;ksftr gh ugha fd;k x;k rks fu;kstu ds vHkko esa izkFkhZ dks LFkkukarj.k fd, tkus dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrk
gSA izkFkhZ dsoy ,d futh okgu pkyd ds :i esa lacaf/kr izca/kd ds ikl dk;Z dj jgk Fkk rFkk viuh lsok,a ml vf/kdkjh dks ns jgk Fkk u fd
vizkFkhZ cSad dks vkSj izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh vizkFkhZ cSad dh lsokvksa esa ugha FkkA izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ cSad }kjk osru Hkh ugha fn;k tkrk FkkA cSad ds fdlh Hkh
vf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkhZ dks O;fDrxr MªkbZoj ds :i esa j[kuk izkFkhZ ,oa ml vf/kdkjh ds chp dh viuh futh O;oLFkk gS rFkk mldk vizkFkhZ cSad ls
fdlh izdkj dk laca/k ugha gS ,oa vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrs gS vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= lO;;
[kkfjt fd;k tkosA
4&
lk{; esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a o vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls cuokjhyky eh.kk ds 'kiFk&i= izLrqr gq, ftuls ijLij ftjg dh x;hA
mHk;i{k dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh x;h ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA
5&
mHk;i{kksa dh cgl lquh xbZ] tks fd mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ dh
vksj ls vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd, x, gS&
1. Central Bank of India & ors Vs. Mh. Yunus Ali- Writ Appeal No. 165/2003(Arising Ourt of WP(C)-951/2001) Dt.
17.05.2004 (Gauhati HC)
2. Vice Chancellor Anand Agriculture University Vs. Kanubhai Nanubhai Vaghela and another-AIR2021 Supreme
Court 3529,
3. Smt. Banarsi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.- 2008 WLC 93 (Raj. HC),
4. Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat- IAR 2022 SC(Supp) 588,
5. Anoop Chauhan vs. Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer- 2024(4) CJ (Civ.)(Raj.) 2423,
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa Syndicate Bank Vs. Pawan Kumar-W.P.(C) 11412/2017 Dt. 08-01-2024
(Delhi HC) U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
6&
gLrxr izdj.k esa loZizFke U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ ds e/; ^^deZdkj&fu;kstd^^ ds laca/k jgs gS vFkok
ugha\
bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr gqvk gS ftlesa mlus LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh
iqujko`fRr dh gS ,oa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mlds }kjk mlds 'kiFk i= ds lkFk izn'kZ MCy;w 1 yxk;r 9 is'k fd, gSA mls izfri{kh us fu;qfDr
vkns'k ugha fn;k FkkA mls izfri{kh us dke ls gVkus dk vkns'k Hkh ugha fn;k Fkk ekSf[kd :i ls gVk;k FkkA og igys >kykokM+ esa izfri{kh cSad
esa vxzh.kh cSad vf/kdkjh ds ikl dke djrk FkkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd mlus bl dsl esa vcxz.kh cSad dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;k gSA ;g ckr lgh
gS fd mldk gktjh jftLVj ugha j[kk tkrk FkkA ;g ckr xyr gS fd mls vxz.kh cSad eSustj xkM+h pykus dk Hkqxrku djrk gks cfYd mls cSad
}kjk ckmpj ls Hkqxrku gksrk FkkA ckmpj mlus U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij is'k ugha fd, gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd og cSad ds vxz.kh eSustj dk
O;fDrxr MªkbZoj FkkA ;g xyr gS fd cSad eSustj dk ,ykmal nsrh gks vkSj eSustj fQj mls Hkqxrku djrk gksA cfYd cSad }kjk Mk;jsDV
Hkqxrku djrh FkhA mls etnwjh ds vuqlkj Hkqxrku gksrk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd cSad fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k viukrh gS ftlds vuq:i mlus
vknsonu fd;k FkkA mls fdl vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sxk ,slk dksbZ vkns'k ugha fudys FksA fdl vf/kdkjh }kjk Hkqxrku fd;k tk,xkA
,sls dksbZ vkns'k ugha fudkys FksA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vxz.kh cSad >kykokM+ eSaustj vyx gS {ks=h; dk;kZy; dksVk dk vyx&vyx gS ysfdu
dk;kZy; dksVk dk gh gS ogka ls ekSf[kd :i ls vkns'k fn, tkrs FksA mlds ikl LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k gS tks og is'k dj ldrk gSA izn'kZ MCy;w
2]3]4 ij cSad lhy ugha gSA izn'kZ 5]7]8 izekf.kr izfr ugha gSA og vHkh pk; dh nqdku ij dke dj jgk gSA mls 70 jkst feyrs gSA
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
867
vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls lk{; esa cuokjh yky eh.kk dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mlus tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr
rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh vksj ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g dguk xyr gS fd mls izdj.k dh iwjh tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS
fd og fjdkWMZ ds vk/kkj ij xokgh ns jgk gSA mls irk ugha gS fd o"kZ 1988 esa vizkFkhZ cSad esa vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd dkSu&dkSu FksA ;g dguk
lgh gS fd mls ;g Hkh tkudkjh ugha gS fd o"kZ 1988 ls 1995 rd vizkFkhZ cSad esa dkSu&dkSu vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd
mls tkudkjh ugha gS fd o"kZ 1995 ls 2006 rd vizkFkhZ cSad esa dkSu&dkSu vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd FksA mls irk ugha gSa fd izn'kZ MCY;w 10 muds
dk;kZy; dk gksA mls ;g Hkh irk ugha gS fd Jh ,l-ds- ukxiky fnukad 25-11-2003 dks muds cSad esa vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd gksA og vizkFkhZ cSad
esa fn- 30-05-2016 ls dk;Zjr gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd dh fu;qfDr lsaVªy cSad }kjk dh tkrh gSA mudk lapkyu i`Fkd
ckWMh ls fd;k tkrk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd okgu lapkyu ds fy, O;fDxr MªkbZoj j[k ldrk gS ftlds fy, og
v/khd`r gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl jkf'k dks vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd cSad ls iquHkZj.k djrk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izn'kZ mCY;w 9 muds
dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUr.k o"kZ 2003 esa ftyk ckjka ls >kykokM+ fd;k x;k FkkA ,slk
LFkkukurj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA mls izn'kZ MCy;w 7 o izn'kZ MCY;w 9 dh tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izkFkhZ ds fookn ds laca/k
esa O;fDrxr tkudkjh ugha gSA mls irk ugha gS fd izkFkhZ us o"kZ 1988 ls o"kZ 2005 rd vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd ds ;gka ftyk ckjka ,oa >kykokM+ esa
O;fDrxr MªkbZoj ds :i esa dk;Z fd;k gks ;k ughaA mls irk ugha gS fd izkFkhZ dks fnukad 20-11-2006 dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k gksA muds ikl
,slk dksbZ fjdkWMZ ugha gSA
7&
bl izdkj gLrxr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ Jfed dk dFku jgk gS fd mlus vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa mlds {ks=kkf/kdkj esa fLFkr vxz.kh cSad
vf/kdkjh] >kykokM+ ds ;gka fn- 01-12-88 ls 30-11-2006 ds e/;kUg i'pkr rd fujarj 240 fnu ls vf/kd le; rd dk;Z fd;k gS ,oa bl
nkSjku izkFkhZ dk LFkkukUrj.k vizkFkhZ }kjk fd;k x;k gS rFkk izkFkhZ dks osru dk Hkqxrku cSad }kjk fd;k tkrk FkkA izkFkhZ dks gVkrs le; vf/kfu;e
ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh vogsyuk dh xbZ gSA ysfdu vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izkFkhZ ds mDr dFkuksa dk [k.Mu fd;k x;k gS vkSj ;g Li"V fd;k
x;k gS fd og izkFkhZ dk fu;kstd ugha gS uk gh izkFkhZ us dHkh dksbZ dk;Z muds ;gka fd;k gSA izkFkhZ o izfri{kh laLFkku ds e/; dHkh Hkh fu;kstd
o deZdkj dk laca/k ugha jgk gSA izkFkhZ dsoy ,d futh okgu pkyd ds :i esa lacaf/kr izca/kd ds ikl dk;Z dj jgk Fkk rFkk viuh lsok,a ml
vf/kdkjh dks ns jgk Fkk u fd vizkFkhZ cSad dks vkSj izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh vizkFkhZ cSad dh lsokvksa esa ugha FkkA cSad ds fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkhZ dks
O;fDrxr MªkbZoj ds :i esa j[kuk izkFkhZ ,oa ml vf/kdkjh ds chp dh viuh futh O;oLFkk gS rFkk mldk vizkFkhZ cSad ls fdlh izdkj dk laca/k
ugha gSA izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ ds e/; deZdkj&fu;kstd LFkkfir ugha gksus ls izdj.k dks [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA
izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a dks bl izdj.k eas vxz.kh cSad vf/kdkjh] >kykokM+ dk MªkbZoj fn- 01-12-1988 ij fu;qDr gksus rFkk fn- 01-12-1988 ls
ysdj 30-11-2006 rd fujarj vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z djus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS fdUrq bl laca/k esa vizkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha dh
xbZ gS cfYd izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa tks nLrkosth lk{; is'k dh xbZ gS mlesa izn'kZ MCY;w 1 vkj-vks- ¼,p-vkj-vks-½ dksVk dks
futh MªkbZoj ds fy, ;qfuQkWeZ ,oa tqrksa ds fy, fy[kk x;k i= fn- 23-01-2006] izn'kZ MCY;w 2 yxk;r 4 gLrfyf[kr fooj.k] izn'kZ MCY;w 5
izkFkhZ dk fn- 21-02-90 dks {ksf=; izca/kd] lSaVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k }kjk tkjh igpku i=] izn'kZ MCY;w 6 {ks=h; izca/kd]¼,e-vkj- fot;jkfu;k½]
}kjk tksuy vkWQl lsd- vkWfQl] ubZ fnYyh dks izkFkhZ dks MªkbZoj ds in ij LFkkbZ djus ckcr~ fy[kk x;k i= fn- 22-08-2000] izn'kZ MCY;w 7
izkFkhZ }kjk egkizca/kd] dkfeZd foHkkx] lsaVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k dsUnzh; dk;kZy;] eqEcbZ dks okgu pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr djus ckcr i= fn-
05-02-2001] izn'kZ MCY;w 8 o izn'kZ MCY;w 9 izkFkhZ dks okgu pkyd ds in ij fu;qDr djus ckcr {ks=h; izca/kd }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx] vkapfyd
dk;kZy;] ubZ fnYyh dks izsf"kr i= fn- 08-02-2001 ,oa 22-05-2001 rFkk izn'kZ MCy;w 10 vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd] >kykokM+ }kjk {ks=h; izca/kd]
dksVk dks izkFkhZ ds fjdkWMZ Hkstus ckcr~ i= fn- 25-11-2003 gSA
mijksDr nLrkosth lk{; ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gks jgk gS fd izn'kZ MCy;w 2 yxk;r 4 ij vizkFkhZ ds laLFkku dh eksgj ,oa fdlh
vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj dgha Hkh vafdr ugha gS blfy, izn'kZ MCY;w 2 yxk;r 4 lk{; esa xzkg; ugha gSA izn'kZ MCY;w 1 ij dgha Hkh izkFkhZ dk uke
vafdr ugha gS blfy, izn'kZ MCY;w 2 dks izkFkhZ ls lacaf/kr ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA izn'kZ MCY;w 5 dh izekf.kdrk ckcr~ izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk
vizkFkhZ ds xokg ls dksbZ ftjg ugha dh xbZ gSA izn'kZ MCY;w 6] MCY;w 8] MCY;w 9 izkFkhZ futh okgu pkyd dks vizkFkhZ ds ;gka fjDr okgu pkyd
ds in ij fu;qfDr djus ckcr mPp vf/kdkfj;ksa dks fy[ks x, i= gS ,oa izn'kZ MCy;w 8 o 9 esa ;g mYysf[kr gS fd izkFkhZ {ks=h; izca/kd ds
fuft okgu pkyd gS rFkk mls lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd okgu pkyd ds fjDr in ij fu;qDr djus ckcr {ks=h; izca/kd }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx] vkapfyd
dk;kZy;] ubZ fnYyh dks fy[kk x;k gS ,oa izn'kZ MCY;w 10 esa izkFkhZ ds vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd dk O;fDr MªkbZoj gksuk mYysf[kr gS ,oa izkFkhZ us Lo;a
viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og cSad ds vxz.kh eSustj dk O;fDrxr MªkbZoj Fkk rFkk blfy, vizkFkhZ }kjk tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse
fd, x, dFku fd ^^izkFkhZ dsoy ,d futh okgu pkyd ds :i esa lacaf/kr izca/kd ds ikl dk;Z dj jgk Fkk rFkk viuh lsok,a ml vf/kdkjh dks
ns jgk Fkk u fd vizkFkhZ cSad dks vkSj izkFkhZ dHkh Hkh vizkFkhZ cSad dh lsokvksa esa ugha FkkA^^ vf/kd fo'ouh; izrhr gksrs gSA mijksDr lk{; ds
voyksdu ,oa izkFkhZ }kjk ftjg esa dh xbZ LohdkjksfDr fd og cSad ds vxz.kh eSustj dk O;fDrxr MªkbZoj Fkk o LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse ds en la- 1
esa fd, x, dFku fd mls osru dk Hkqxrku vxz.kh cSad vf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tkrk Fkk] ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ds vxz.kh cSad
vf/kdkjh vf/kdkjh dk futh okgu pkyd Fkk uk fd cSad dk okgu pkydA
8&
izkFkhZ }kjk bl izdj.k eas ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mlus ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa mls jsxwyj djus gsrq fu;kstd ds
fo:) ;kfpdk izLrqr dh Fkh ftlls fu;kstd izkFkhZ ls ukjkt gks x;k rFkk izkFkhZ dks voS/k izdkj ls ukSdjh ls fn- 30-11-2006 dks gVk fn;kA
izkFkhZ }kjk vius mDr dFku esa leFkZu esa Hkh dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij is'k ugha dh xbZ gS ,oa ;g Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS izkFkhZ }kjk ekuuh;
jkt- mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk izLrqr djus ds mijkar D;k vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA
9&
izkFkhZ dks okafNr vuqrks"k izkIr djus ds fy, ;g izekf.kr djuk vko';d gS fd mlds ,oa vizkFkhZ ds e/; ^^deZdkj&fu;kstd^^ ds
laca/k LFkkfir jgs gks ,oa mlus mldh lsok lekfIr fnukad 30-11-2006 ls iwoZ ds ,d dys.Mj o"kZ esa fujarj 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gksA
izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa yxkrkj 18 o"kksZ rd dk;Z djus ds mijkar Hkh fu;kstu laca/kh dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; is'k ugha xbZ gS
cfYd ;g laHko ugha gS fd brus o"kksZa rd vizkFkhZ ds ;gka dk;Z djus ds mijkar mlds ikl fu;kstu laca/kh dksbZ lk{; uk gks ,oa izkFkhZ us ftjg
868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
eas ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds ikl fu;qfDr vkns'k ugha gS] uk gh gVkus dk vkns'k gS rFkk cSad }kjk mls okmpj ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk o
okmpj mlus U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ij is'k ugha fd, gS blds vfrfjDr ftjg esa ;g Hkh LohdkjksfDr dh gS fd og vxz.kh cSad ds eSustj dk
O;fDrxr pkyd FkkA izkFkhZ }kjk gh izLrqr nLrkosth lk{; izn'kZ MCY;w 8] MCy;w 9 ,oa MCY;w 10 ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ] vizkFkhZ ds
vxz.kh ftyk izca/kd mlds mijkar {ks=h; izca/kd dk futh okgu pkyd rFkk mlds }kjk gh mls Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk Fkk ,sls eas izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ
ds e/; ^^deZdkj ,oa fu;kstd^^ ds laca/k LFkkfir ugha gksuk ik;k tkrk gS ,oa izkFkhZ i{k }kjk tks U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd, x, gS muesa
izfrikfnr fl)karksa ls U;k;ky; iw.kZr;k lger gS ysfdu izdj.k fd rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka fHkUu gksus ls izkFkhZ ds izdj.k esa og pLik ugha
gksrs gSA
10&
bl izdkj mijksDr foospu o fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ viuh lk{; ls ;g fl) dj ikus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlds ,oa vizkFkhZ
ds e/; ^^deZdkj ,oa fu;kstd^^ ds laca/k LFkkfir jgs gSaA blfy, izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ls dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ?kksf"kr gksus ;ksX;
ugha gS ,oa lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl blh vuq:i mRrfjr gksus ;ksX; gSA
11&
ifj.kkeLo:i Hkkjr ljdkj] Je ea=ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk izklkafxd vkns'k fnukad 13-10-2009 ,oa lifBr 'kqf)i= fnukad 05-09-
2018 ds tfj;s lEizsf"kr funsZ'k@jsQzsUl fookn dks blh vuq:i mRrfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ Jfed fnus'k pan ifjgkj ;g fl) dj
ikus esa vlQy jgk gS fd mlds ,oa vizkFkhZ {ks=h; izca/kd] lSUVªy cSad vkWQ bf.M;k] dksVk ds e/; ^^deZdkj ,oa
fu;kstd^^ ds laca/k LFkkfir jgs gSaA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ ls fdlh izdkj dk vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 08-07-2025 dks [kqys U;k;kf/kdj.k esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj
dks izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई दिल्ली, 12 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 174.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad
vkWQ cM+kSnk ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa औद्योजगक
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksVk ds iapkV [Ref.02/2012(CIS- 03/2014)] (CNR-CRJKT060001442012) izdkf”kr
djrh gSA
[सं. एल-39025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-II)-20]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 12th February, 2026
S.O. 174.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. 02/2012(CIS-03/2014] (CNR-RJKT060001442012 ) of the
Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen
[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-20]
SALONI, Dy. Director
U;k;k/kh'k] Je U;k;ky;] dksVk¼jkt-½
ihBklhu vf/kdkjh% lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] vkj-,pts-,l- ¼ftyk tt laoxZ½
izdj.k dzekad% J-U;k-&02@2012¼lhvkbZ,l&03@2014½
¼lh,uvkj&vkjtsdsVh060001442012½
fnukad LFkkfir% 27-04-2012
izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 2,¼2½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
e/;
';keyky esgRrj iq= Jh ekaxhyky] fuoklh&xzke ihify;k] iksLV nkark] rglhy fiM+kok] ftyk >kykokM+
&&izkFkhZ Jfed
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
869
,oa
lgk;d egkizca/kd] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] dIrku nqxkZizlkn pkS/kjh ekxZ] oS'kkyh uxj] vtesj
&&vizkFkhZ fu;kstd
mifLFkr
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh fnus'k jk; f}osnh
vizkFkhZ fu;kstd dh vksj ls izfrfuf/k%&
Jh lqjs'k ekFkqj
%vf/kfu.kZ;%
fnukad% 25-07-2025
izkFkhZ Jfed dh vksj ls gLrxr izkFkZuk&i= vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947¼ftls vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e^^ ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ dh
/kkjk 2,¼2½ ds vUrxZr bl U;k;ky; esa bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd mls izfri{kh cSad dks Lohij@pijklh ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq
ftyk jkstxkj dk;kZy; ls izkFkhZ dk uke mEehnokj ds :i eas Hkstk x;k FkkA bl ij izfri{kh us izkFkhZ dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq fn- 26-04-2004 dks
cqyk;k vkSj ukSdjh gsrq ml dk vkosnu ys dj mldk lk{kkRdkj fy;kA mDr in ds fy, izkFkhZ dk p;u gksus dh lwpuk izfri{kh }kjk fn- 28-
04-2010 ds i= ls izkFkhZ dks izsf"kr dh xbZA bl i= esa of.kZr vkSipkfjdrk,a iw.kZ gksus ds mijkar izkFkhZ dks fn- 05-05-2010 ds fu;qfDr i= ls
fu;qfDr nh tkdj fn- 10-05-2010 rd >kyokM+ 'kk[kk esa mifLFkfr nsus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;kA izkFkhZ us mDr fu;qfDr i= ds vuqlkj esa fn- 07-05-
2010 dks 'kk[kk >kykokM+ esa dk;Z ij mifLFkfr ns nhA izfri{kh us izkFkhZ dks fn- 07-09-2010 dk ,d i= ns dj ml ij dqN vkjksi yxkrs gq,
mlls mudk Li"Vhdj.k pkgkA bl i= esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk fd ^^vki bl i= dh izkfIr ds rhu fnuksa esa viuk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djsa
vU;Fkk ;g ekuk tk,xk fd bl fo"k; esa viuki{k izLrqr ugha djuk pkgrs rFkk cSad vki ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= gksxkA^^
izkFkhZ us fn- 07-09-2010 ds i= ds laca/k esa viuk Li"Vhdj.k fn- 13-09-2010 dks izfri{kh dks 'kk[kk izca/kd ds ek/;e ls izLrqr dj fn;kA izkFkhZ
dks izfri{kh }kjk fn- 30-10-2010 ds i= ls lsok ls fu"dkflr dj fn;k x;kA bl i= esa vafdr fd;k x;k Fkk fd ^^vkids O;ogkj ds lanHkZ esa
vki dks fn, x, ekSds ,oa izkd`frd U;k; dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, eSa fu.kZ;drkZ vf/kdkjh ds :i esa mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks en~nsutj j[krs gq,
vkids fu;qfDr i= la- AJ/RO/HRM/442 fn- 05-05-2010 esa mYys[kfr lsok HkrhZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu.kZ; ysrk gwa fd vkidh lsok,a cSad ds
vf/kdfj;ksa ,oa xzkgdksa ds izfr vfgrdkjh gSA vr% vki dks cSad lsok ls rqjar izHkko ls fu"dkflr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ bl izdkj izkFkhZ dks izfri{kh
}kjk mDr i= fn- 30-10-2010 ds }kjk cSad lsok ls fu"dkflr djus dk naM fn;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls fu"dklu naMkRed gSA izfri{kh }kjk
izkFkhZ dks mDr naM fn, tkus ds iwoZ lsok 'krksZa ,oa f}i{kh; le>kSrksa ds vuq:i dksbZ vkSipkfjd vkjksi i= ugha fn;k x;kA izfri{kh us muds i=
fn- 07-09-2010 }kjk ftu vkjksiksa ij izkFkhZ ls Li"Vhdj.k pkgk Fkk] izkFkhZ us ;Fkkle; izLrqr dj fn;k Fkk ysfdu izkFkhZ ij yxk, x, bu vkjksiksa
dks lkfcr djus ds fy, dksbZ tkap ugha dh xbZA izkFkhZ dks lquokbZ vkSj izfrj{kk dks dksbZ volj iznku ugha fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ dks lsok ls
fu"dkflr fd, tkus ds iwoZ dksbZ dkj.k crkvks uksfVl Hkh ugha fn;k x;k vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izkFkhZ;k dks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa
cgkyh dk vuqrks"k iznku fd;k tkosA
2&
vizkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls LVsVesUV vkWQ Dyse dk tokc izLrqr dj ;g izfrokn fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ dks lk{kkRdkj fnukad 26-04-
2010 dh gqvk Fkk çkFkhZ dh fu;qfä 6 ekg ds çkscs'ku ij dh x;h FkhA 6 ekg ds çkscs'ku ds i'pkr~ çkFkhZ dks LFkk;h fu;qfä nh tkuh FkhA mä
çkscs'ku vof/k esa cSad dks ;g vf/kdkj Fkk fd oks çkFkhZ dh lsok,a 1 ekg dk uksfVl nsdj vFkok uksfVl dh ,ot esa ,d efgus dk osru vkSj
vU; HkÙks nsdj lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA çkFkhZ dh mä ukSdjh LFkk;h ugha FkhA çkFkhZ dks fdlh Hkh çdkj dk dksbZ naM ugha fn;k x;k gSaA çkFkhZ
dh lsok,a mldks çkscs'ku ij tks fu;qfä nh xbZ Fkh] mldh 'krksZa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, çkFkhZ dh lsok,a lekIr dh xbZ FkhA izkFkhZ dh fu;qfä
çkscs'ku ij 6 ekg ds fy, bl cSad dh lsok,a ,d efgus dk uksfVl nsdj vFkok uksfVl dh ,ot esa ,d efgus dk osru vkSj vU; HkÙks nsdj
lekIr dh tk ldrh gSa bu 'krksaZ dks /;ku esa /;ku esa j[krs gq, çkFkhZ dks fdlh Hkh çdkj dk dksbZ vkjksi i= nsus dh vko';drk ugha gSaA çkFkhZ
ds }kjk le;≤ ij mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk o xzkgdksa ds lkFk vokaNuh; O;ogkj jgk gSA bl ckcr çkFkhZ ls Li"Vhdj.k pkgk x;k Fkk] çkFkhZ
us cSad ds i= fnukad 07-09-2010 dk tks Li"Vhdj.k çLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk oks larks"ktud ugha Fkk rFkk mä Li"Vhdj.k esa Hkh çkFkhZ us ml ij
yxs O;ogkj o dfe;ksa dks Lohdkj fd;k Fkk- çkFkhZ dks çk—frd U;k; ds fl)kUr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, lquokbZ dk iwjk ekSdk fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk
çkFkhZ dks çkscs'ku ihfj;M dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, rFkk mlesa n'kkZ;h xbZ 'krksaZ dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, rFkk çkFkhZ dk vlarks"ktud dk;Z fu";knu ,oa
dk;Z{kerk rFkk cSad ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk fd, tk jgs O;ogkj dke ugha djus dh ço`frr rFkk cSad ds xzkgdksa ds lkFk fd, tk jgs O;ogkj
dks eísutj j[krs gq, cSad ds vf/kdkfj;ksa us çkFkhZ dks cSad dh lsok esa ugha j[kus dk fopkj fd;k D;ksafd çkFkhZ ds }kjk fd, tk jgs O;ogkj ls
cSad dh cnukeh Hkh gks jgh Fkh rFkk cSad ds dk;Z ij Hkh vlj iM+ jgk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, o fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zdgh dh x;h gS ,oa mDr
vk/kkj izkFkhZ dk Dyse izkFkZuk i= lO;; [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA
3&
mHk;i{k ds vH;kosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEu fookn fcUnq fojfpr fd;s x;s%&
^^D;k mi&egkizca/kd] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk] {kS=h; dk;Zy;] dIrku nqxkZizlkn pkS/kjh ekxZ] oS'kkyh uxj] vtesj }kjk Jfed ';ke yky
esgrj iq= Jh ekaxhyky dks i=@vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 ds }kjk lsok ls gVk;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed D;k
jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^
4&
lk{; esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls Lo;a dk ,oa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vCnqy [kyhd pkS/kjh ds 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd, x, gS fti ij ijLij
ftjg dh xbZ gSA mHk;i{k dh vksj ls nLrkosth lk{: Hkh is'k dh xbZ gS ftldk ;Fkkle; mYys[k fd;k tkosxkA
870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5&
mHk;i{k ds izfrfuf/kx.k dh x;h cgl lquh x;h tks cgl eq[;r% mudh vksj ls izLrqr vius&vius vH;kosnuksa ds vuq:i gh jgh gSA
blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk dFku jgk gS fd bl izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us izkFkhZ ls dk;Z O;ogkj ds laca/k esa i= fn- 07-09-2010 }kjk
Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk Fkk ftldk Li"Vhdj.k izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds laca/k esa is'k fd;k fdUrq vizkFkhZ us dsoy Li"Vhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks
i=@vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 }kjk ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k ,oa fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) i= fn- 07-09-2010 esa yxk, vkjksiksa ckcr~ dksbZ
foHkkxh; tkpa ugha djokbZ xbZ dsoy Li"Vhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds fo:) n.Mkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 tkjh dj izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k
,oa mDr n.Mkns'k ckcr~ foHkkxh; tkap fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk tks fd vizkFkhZ }kjk ugha dh xbZ gS blfy, izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkjh n.Mkns'k fn-
30-10-2010 vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS ,oa izkFkhZ us mldks fiNys lEiw.kZ osru lfgr lsok esa cgkyh dk vuqrks"k fn, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k
gS ,oa izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa Ratnesh kumar Choudhary VS. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical
Sciences, Patna & others- (2015) 12 AD (SC) U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;k gSA
[k.Mu esa vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk dFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ dks vkns'k fn- 05-05-2010 }kjk Lohij de fivksu ds ij vLFkkbZ :i ls 6 ekg
ds izkscs'ku ij fu;qfDr fd;k Fkk ,oa izkFkhZ dk dk;Z O;ogkj lgh ugha ik, tkus ds dkj.k vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 }kjk ,d ekg dk vfxze uksfVl
osru nsdj mldh lsok,a lekIr dh xbZ gS tks fd iw.kZrF;k mfpr ,oa oS/k gS rFkk vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 tkjh djus ls iwoZ izkFkhZ dks dk;Z
O;ogkj ckcr i= tkjh dj Li"Vhdj.k pkgk x;k Fkk ftldk tokc izkFkhZ us fn;k ,oa tokc larks"kizn ugha ik, tkus ij mldh lsok,a lekIr
dh xbZ gS bl izdkj vizkFkhZ us izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)karksa dh vogsyuk ugha dh gSA vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa vizkFkhZ izfrfuf/k }kjk fuEu
U;kf;d n`"Vkar izLrqr fd, x, gS&
1. Krishnadevaraya Education Trust and another Vs. L.A. Balakrishna-AIR 2001 Supreme Court 625,
2. Hukum Chand Khundia Vs. Chandigarh Administration and another- Supreme court SLC(C) No. 6503/1986 Dt.
09.10.1995,
3. Narpat Singh Bhait Vs. State of Raj. & others- 1991 LAB.I.C. 1034 (Raj. HC),
4. Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore, Vs. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar and
anr-AIR 1993 Supreme Court 392,
5. K.V. Krishnamani, Vs. Lalit Kala Academy-1996 LAB. I.C. 2063 (SC),
6. Bundi Chittorgarh Kshetrya Gramin Bank, Bundi Vs. P.O., Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & anr.- RLR
1995(1) 700 (Raj HC),
7. Mahavir Singh Vs. Delhi Transport Co.- 1995 (71) FLR 535 (Delhi HC),
8. Sangeeta Pathak Vs. High Court of Raj of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur & ors.- RLR 1995(1) 575
(Raj. HC)
6& bl izdj.k eas i{kdkjksa }kjk vH;kosnu izLrqr djus ds mijkar U;k;ky; }kjk fuEu fookn fcUnq fojfpr fd;k gS fd ^^D;k mi&egkizca/kd]
cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk] {kS=h; dk;Zy;] dIrku nqxkZizlkn pkS/kjh ekxZ] oS'kkyh uxj] vtesj }kjk Jfed ';ke yky esgrj iq= Jh ekaxhyky dks
i=@vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 ds }kjk lsok ls gVk;k tkuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS\ ;fn ugha] rks Jfed D;k jkgr ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\^^ bl fook|d
dks fl) djus dk Hkkj Lo;a izkFkhZ ij gS ftlesa laca/k esa izkFkhZ }kjk i=koyh ij lk{; esa Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa mlus LVsVesaV
vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh iqujko`fRr dh gS rFkk ftjg eas ;g dFku fd;k gS fd izn'kZ MCY;w 1 ds }kjk mls fu;qfDr nh xbZ Fkh vkSj izn'kZ
MCY;w 2 , Hkh gSA og i<+k fy[kk gS vkBoha d{kk ikl gSA ;g ckr lgh gSfd izn'kZMCY;w 2&, ds tfj, mls izkscs'ku ij j[kk x;k FkkA ;g ckr
lgh gS fd mls ijekuasV djus dk dksbZ vkns'k ugha fn;k x;k FkkA ;g ckr lh gS fd izn'kZMCy;w 5 , ds }kjk mls fudkyk x;k FkkA ;g ckr
lgh gS fd mls >wBs ,yhxs'ku yxk, FksA blh ,yhxs'ku ds ckjs esa mlus izn'kZ MCY;w 4 tokc fn;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd mls fdlh ,yhxs'ku
ds dkj.k u fudkyk gksA oks ,yhxs'ku izn'kZ MCy;w 5 esa ugha fy[kk gSA mlus ukSdjh ls gVkus ds ckn dgha Hkh ,IykbZ ugha fd;k gSA mlls
NwvkNwr djrs Fks bl ckcr mlus iqfyl esa fjiksVZ ugha djokbZA mlus fyf[kr esa Hkh f'kdk;r ugha dhA
lk{; esa vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls vCnqy [kkyhd pkS/kjh dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa mlus tokc LVsVesaV vkWQ Dyse esa of.kZr
rF;kasa dh iqjko`fRr dh gS rFkk ftjg esa ;g dFku gS fd çn'kZ MCY;w 1 yxk;r 3 ,oa çn'kZ MCY;w 5 muds çcU/ku }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s i= gSA
mlus QkbZy ugha ns[kh gS bl dkj.k esa ugha dg ldrk fd çn'kZ MCY;w 4 mlh Li"Vhdj.k dh çfr gS tks çkFkhZ us mi egkçcU/kd dks is'k dh
FkhA çn'kZ MCY;w 6 çkFkhZ }kjk Je foHkkx dks f'kdk;r gks rks mls mldh tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd og O;fäxr :i ls
';keyky esgÙkj dks ugha tkurk gw¡A og mlh czkUp esa Fkk ftl czkUp esa ';keyky inLFkkfir FkkA çkFkhZ ds dk;Zdky esa og mlh 'kk[kk dk
czkUp eSustj FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd mlus çkFkhZ ds lkeus fdlh xokg ls c;ku ugha fd;s D;ksafd bldh vko';drk gh ugha FkhA çkFkhZ us tks
i=kpkj is'k fd;s gS oks gh ekSdk fn;k FkkA mUgksus dksbZ t‚p fjiksVZ rS;kj ugha dh D;ksafd çkscs'ku dky esa bldh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gksrh gSA
;g dguk lgh gS fd çkFkhZ dk Li"Vhdj.k lgh ugha ik;s tkus ds dkj.k çkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk;k x;k FkkA
7&
bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds voyksdu ls ;g nf'kZr gks jgk gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us izkFkhZ dks izn'kZ MCY;w 2 , vkns'k
fn- 05-05-2010 }kjk 6 ekg ds fy, izkscs'ku ds vk/kkj ij Lohoj de fivksu ds in ij fu;qfDr fd;k Fkk ,oa mDr vkns'k dh 'krZsa ^^vkidh
ifjoh{kk/khu vof/k N% efgus dh gksxh ftls cSad vius foosdkvf/kdkj ls c<+k ldrk gSA uksV djsa fd mDr vof/k esa cSad }kjk vkidh lsok,a ,d
efgus dk uksfVl nsdj vFkok uksfVl dh ,ot esa ,d efgus dk osru vkSj vU; HkRrs nsdj lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA^^ FkhA ftlds mijkar
vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks izn'kZ MCY;w 3 , i= fn- 07-09-2010 tkjh dj izkFkhZ ds vlarks"ktud dk;Z fu"iknu ,oa mPpkf/kdfj;ksa o xzkgdksa ds lkFk
vokaNuh; O;ogkj ds laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k pkgk x;k ,oa izkFkhZ us viuk Li"Vhdj.k izn'kZ MCY;w 4 vizkFkhZ ds le{k is'k fd;k gS ,oa vius O;ogkj
esa lq/kkj ykus dk fuosnu fd;kA ftlds mijkar vizkFkhZ }kjk izn'kZ MCY;w 5 , vkns'k fnukad 30-10-2010 tkjh fd;k x;k gS ,oa fu;qfDr i= esa
[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]
भारत का राजृत्र : फरवरी 21, 2026/फाल् गुन 2, 1947
871
of.kZr 'krksZa ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks cSad lsok ls rqjar izHkko ls fu"dkflr fd;k x;k gS ,oa izkFkhZ dks lsok ls fu"dkflr djrs le; uksfVl vof/k
gsrq ,d ekg dk osru ,oa HkRrs vkfn dk fu;qekuqlkj Hkqxrku fd;k gSA
mijksDr foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ls Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ dks fn- 05-05-2010 dks N% ekg ds fy, izkscs'ku ij Lohij de ihvksu
ds in ij fu;qfDr fd;k ftlds mijkar izkFkhZ dk vlarks"ktud dk;ZO;ogkj ,oa cSad ds mPpkf/kdfj;ksa ,oa xzkgdksa ds lkFk vokafNuh; O;ogkj ds
dkj.k mldks cSd lsok ls fu"dkflr vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 tkjh fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZ }kjk izkFkhZ ds fu;qfDr i= esa ;g Li"Vr% ;g 'krZ vafdr
dh xbZ Fkh fd mldh ifjoh{kk vof/k 6 ekg dh gksxh ,oa cSad bls c<+k ldrk gS ,oa cSd izkFkhZ dh lsok ,d efgus dk uksfVl vFkok uksfVl
osru dk Hkqxrku dj mldh lsok lekIr dh tk ldrh gS ,oa fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ dk dk;ZO;ogkj larks"ktud ugha tk, tkus ds dkj.k mldh
lsok,a vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 }kjk dh xbZ gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lkexzh ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks gVkus ls iwoZ vizkFkhZ }kjk mls
dk;Z O;ogkj esa lq/kkj ykus ckcr fn-21-07-2010 vkns'k@i= tkjh fd;k x;k ,oa mlds mijkar i= fn- 07-09-2010 vlarks"ktud dk;Z fu"iknu
,oa mPpkf/kdfj;ksa o xzkgdksa ds lkFk vokaNuh; O;ogkj ckcr~ Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k ftldk Li"Vhdj.k izkFkhZ }kjk fu;kstd dks is'k dj dk;Z
O;ogkj esa lq/kkj ykus ckcr~ fuosnu fd;k fdUrq fQj Hkh izkFkhZ }kjk vius dk;ZO;ogkj esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha yk;k x;kA
8&
tgka rd izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k ds rdZ dk iz'u gS fd vizkFkhZ fu;kstd us izkFkhZ ls dk;Z O;ogkj ds laca/k esa i= fn- 07-09-2010 }kjk
Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk Fkk ftldk Li"Vhdj.k izkFkhZ us fu;kstd ds laca/k esa is'k fd;k fdUrq vizkFkhZ us dsoy Li"Vhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dks
i=@vkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 }kjk ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k ,oa fu;kstd }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) i= fn- 07-09-2010 esa yxk, vkjksiksa ckcr~ dksbZ
foHkkxh; tkpa ugha djokbZ xbZ dsoy Li"Vhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds fo:) n.Mkns'k fn- 30-10-2010 tkjh dj izkFkhZ dks ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k
,oa mDr n.Mkns'k ckcr~ foHkkxh; tkap fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk tks fd vizkFkhZ }kjk ugha dh xbZ gS blfy, izkFkhZ ds fo:) tkjh n.Mkns'k fn-
30-10-2010 vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
bl laca/k esa ns[k tk, rks izkFkhZ dks vkns'k fn- 05-05-2010 }kjk N% ekg ds fy, izkscs'ku ij fu;qDr fd;k Fkk ,oa fn- 30-10-2010 dks
gVkrs le; og vizkFkhZ ds fu;kstu esa ifjoh{kkdky ij Fkk ,oa ifjoh{kkdky ds nkSjku mldh lsok,a lekIr fn- 30-10-2010 dks mlds fu;qfDr
i= esa of.kZr 'krksZa ds vuqlkj ,d ekg dk uksfVl osru nsdj dh xbZ gS tks fd iw.kZr;k mfpr ,oa oS/k gS ftlesa fdlh izdkj dk gLr{ksi fd,
fd, tkus dh vko';drk ugha gS rFkk izkFkhZ izfrfuf/k dk mDr rdZ ekU; ugha gSA izkFkhZ i{k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka
fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ mlesa izfrikfnr fl)kar ls dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj fook|d izkFkhZ ds
fo:) rFkk vizkFkhZ ds i{k esa r; fd;k tkrk gSA
%% vk ns 'k %%
9&
izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ekSf[kd rFkk nLrkosth lk{; rFkk lexz foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ Jfed
';keyky esgrj djs ijhfo{kkdky ds nkSjku mldk dk;ZO;ogkj larks"ktud ugha tk, tkus ds dkj.k mldh lsok,a ijhfo{kkdky esa gh fu;qfDr
i= dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj ,d ekg dk uksfVl osru nsdj fnukad 30-10-2010 dks lekIr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gS ftlesa fdlh dk dksbZ gLr{ksi
djus dh dksbZ vo';drk ugha gSA vr% izkFkhZ Jfed] vizkFkhZ lgk;d egkizca/kd] cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk] {ks=h; dk;kZy;] vtesj ls fdlh izdkj dk
vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA
lanhi dqekj 'kekZ] U;k;k/kh'k]
vf/kfu.kZ; vkt fnukad 25-07-2025 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k tkdj gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;k ftls fu;ekuqlkj leqfpr ljdkj dks
izdk'kukFkZ fHktok;k tkosA
नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2026
का.आ. 175.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj
एचडीएफसी बैंक जलजमटेड ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ-1 ds iapkV (1/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA
[सं. एल-12025/01/2026-आईआर (बी-I)-41]
सलोनी, उृ जनिेिक
New Delhi, the 16th February, 2026
S.O. 175.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.1/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Mumbai -1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of HDFC Bank Ltd.
and their workmen.
[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR (B-I)-41]
SALONI, Dy. Director
872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 21, 2026/PHALGUNA 2, 1947
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
Present
JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Presiding Officer
MISC. Application No.-1 of 2020
Parties:
Anwar Hussain Shaikh
Flat No. 301, A wang
Mayur Vatika
Dapodi
Pune-411012
And
The Sr. Vice Presidinet
HDFC Bank Ltd.
HDFC Bank House,
2nd Flor, Senapati Bapat Road,
Lower Parel
Mumbai-400 013
Appearances:
For the first party Management
:
Absent
For the second party workmen
:
Absent
Mumbai, dated 6th day of January, 2026.
Order
In view of the above said facts the Management and Applicant has not appear before the Tribunal and Management
not filed any written statement/ evidence in support of his case affidavit, in spite of several opportunities given to him
and taking into consideration the law as laid by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour
Court (1) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:
“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail. Whenever a
workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative for him to file
written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is challenged and he must
also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file written statement or produce
evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he
would not be entitled to any relief.”
In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:
“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., V.K.
Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38
and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led by or on
behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In such a
situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to
establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail
if no evidence is led.”
And by the Hon‘ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.
Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519;
Since 2022 workman is not present in-spite of notice and no written statement has been filed by the management in
support of his case, the claims liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and the workman is not entitled for any relief.
Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, 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: 2026.02.23 11:34:37 +05'30'