2350 GI/2026

(2681)

रजजस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 13]

नई ददल् ली, अप्रैल 5—अप्रैल 11, 2026, िजनवार/चैत्र 15—चैत्र 21, 1948

No. 13]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 5—APRIL 11, 2026, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 15––CHAITRA 21, 1948

इस भाग में जभन् न ृृ्‍ सं्‍ या दी जाती िै जजससे दक यि ृृथक संकलन के प ृ में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवदेि मंत्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 527.—राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के

खंड (क) के अनुसरण में वैधाजनक आदेि ।

एतद् द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास, बोस्ट्टन मे^ेँ श्री मानवेंद्र ससि, सिायक अनुभाग अजधकारी,

को ददनांक अप्रैल 01, 2026 से सिायक कोंसुलर अजधकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवविन के जलए प्राजधकृत

करती िै।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2026(05)]

तरुण कुमार, अवर सजचव [सीृीवी-II]

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-25042026-271989

CG-DL-W-25042026-271989

2682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2026/CHAITRA 21, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 1st April, 2026

S.O. 527.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the 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 Mr. Manvendra Singh,

Assistant Section Officer, as Assistant Consular Officer in Consulate General of India, Boston to perform the

Consular services with effect from April 01, 2026.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2026(05)]

TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy. (CPV-II)

ृेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 31 माचव, 2026

का.आ. 528.—केंद्रीय सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खनीज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम मे उृयोग के अजधकार के आजवन)

अजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में, तजमलनाडु राज्य क्षेत्र के भीतर तक अजधजनयम

के अधीन, कोची सेलम ृाइृलाइन प्राइवेट जलजमटेड (केएसृीृीएल ) की कोची कोयम्बटूर सेलम एल ृी जी ृाइृलाइन

के जलए, तजमलनाडु राज्य में सक्षम प्राजधकारी के कृत्यों का ृालन करने के जलए केएसृीृीएल ने प्रजतजनयुजि ृर का आ

5831 (अ) ददनांक 15/12/2025 भारत के राजृत्र सं्‍या 5636 ददनांक 17/12/2025 के अंतगवत अजधसूजचत सक्षम

प्राजधकारी श्री ृी दुरैसामी, जडप्टी कलक्टर, के स्ट्थान ृर श्री यस सुंदरराजन, जडप्टी कलक्टर, जजनकी जनयुजि नोडल

अजधकारी कोची सेलम ृाइृलाइन प्रोजेक्ट कोयम्बटूर िै, को प्राजधकृत करती िै ।

यि अजधसूचना जारी िोने की तारीख से लागू िोगी ।

[फा. सं. आर-12031/1/2021-ओआर-II/ई-39085]

िररत कुमार िाक्य, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2026

S.O. 528.—In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the petroleum and mineral pipelines (acquisition of right

of user in land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby authorizes Sri S Sundararajan, Deputy

Collector, in place of earlier notified competent authority Sri P Duraisamy, Deputy Collector Vide S.O. No. 5831 (E)

dated 15/12/2025 published in Gazette of India No. 5636 dated 17/12/2025 on deputation to Kochi Salem Pipeline

Private Limited (KSPPL), who is appointed as Nodal Officer for Kochi Salem Pipeline Project Coimbatore, to

perform the functions of the Competent authority, in the state of Tamilnadu for Kochi Salem Pipeline Private

Limited's Kochi-Coimbatore-Salem LPG Pipeline under the said act.

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

[F. No. R-12031/1/2021-OR-II/E-39085]

HARIT KUMAR SHAKYA, Under. Secy.

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2026

का.आ. 529.—केंद्र सरकार, चलजचत्र (प्रमाणन) जनयम, 2024 के जनयम 8 और 9 के साथ ृर त चलजचत्र

अजधजनयम, 1952 (1952 का 37) की धारा 5(1) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, जनम्नजलजखत व्यजियों को

केंद्रीय दफल्म प्रमाणन बोडव, जतरुवंनतृुरम, के सलािकार ृैनल के सदस्ट्य के प ृ में तत्काल प्रभाव से तीन वर्व की अवजध

या अगले आदेि, जो भी ृिले िों, तक जनयुि करती िैः-

क्र. सं.

नाम

श्री एस राधाकृ्‍णन नायर

सुश्री बीना टीएस

सुश्री वृंदा मिेि

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2026/चैत्र 21, 1948

2683

श्री के. बाबू

श्री के. वेणुगोृाल

सुश्री गायत्री अरुण

डॉ. श्रीजवद्या एनएल

श्री केृी रवींद्रन

सुश्री अनीता टी

10.

श्री स्ट्वप्नजीत एस.एस.

[फा. सं. एम-11019/1/2025-डीओ(एफसी]

संतोर् कुमार मौयव, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 24th February, 2026

S.O. 529.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 (1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of

1952) read with rules 8 and 9 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the Central Government is pleased to

appoint the following persons as Members of the Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film

Certification, Thiruvananthapuram with immediate effect for a period of three years or until further orders, whichever

is earlier:

Sl. No.

Name

Shri S Radhakrishnan Nair

Ms. Beena TS

Ms. Vrinda Mahesh

Shri K Babu

Shri K. Venugopal

Ms. Gayathri Arun

Dr. Sreevidya NL

Shri KP Raveendran

Ms. Anita T

10.

Shri Swapnajith S.S

[F. No. M-11019/1/2025-DO(FC)]

SANTOSH KUMAR MAURYA, Under Secy.

उृभोिा मामले, खाद्य और साववजजनक जवतरण मंत्रालय

(खाद्य और साववजजनक जवतरण जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 16 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 530.—केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के

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

साववजजनक जवतरण जवभाग) के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्रणाधीन जनम्नजलजखत कायावलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित या उससे अजधक

कमवचारीवृन्द ने जिन्दी का कायवसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को राजृत्र में अजधसूजचत करती िै:-

क्र.सं.

अजधसूजचत दकए जाने वाले कायावलय

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम, मंडल कायावलय, खम्मम

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम, मंडल कायावलय, दुगावृुर

[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2008-सिदी (321924)]

अजिनी श्रीवास्ट्तव, संयुक् त सजचव

2684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2026/CHAITRA 21, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Food and Public Distribution)

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2026

S.O. 530.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official purpose of the

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

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

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

S. No.

Offices to be notified

Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Khammam

Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Durgapur

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

ASWANI SRIVASTAVA, Jt. Secy.

आवासन और ििरी कायव मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 30 माचव, 2026

का.आ. 531.—केन् द्रीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा आवासन और ििरी कायव मंत्रालय के प्रिासजनक जनयंत्राणाधीन

रा्‍ टीय राजधानी क्षेत्रृररविन जनगम जलजमटेड जजसके 80% से अजधक अजधकाररयों और कमवचाररयों ने सिदी का

कायवसाधक ज्ञृन प्राप् त कर जलया िै को राजभार्ा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम-1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ जनयम (4) के अंतगवत अजधसूजचत करती िै:

1. रा्‍ रीय राजधनी क्षेत्र ृररविन जनगम जलजमटेड, जनयजमत कायावलय, गजतिजि भवन, आई. एन. ए.,

नई ददल् ली-110023

[फा. सं. ई-11017/5/2013-सिदी]

गोृाल प्रसाद, आर्थथक सलािकार

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2026

S.O. 531.—In pursuance of Sub-rule (4) of Official Language (Use for official purpose of the Union) Rule,

1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the National Capital Region Transport

Corporation Limited under administrative control of Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, where more than 80% of

officers/employees have attained working knowledge of Hindi:

1. National Capital Region Transport Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, GatiShakti Bhawan, INA,

New Delhi-110023.

[F. No. E-11017/5/2013-Hindi]

GOPAL PRASAD, Economic Adviser

नई ददल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2026

का.आ. 532.— fookn vf/kfu;e, 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa

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

ds iapkV (a62/2013) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल–12012/98/2012-vkbZ vkj (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2026/चैत्र 21, 1948

2685

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2026

S.O. 532.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 62/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/98/2012- IR (B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srinosjana

H.J.S. (Retd.)

ID Case No. 62 of 2013

Shri Ambika Prasad,

S/o Shri Cheddi Lal,

C/o Shri O.P. Mathur,

117/K-36, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208025.

…………….Workman

Vs.

1. The General Manager, State Bank of India, LHO Moti Mahal, Hazratgaj, Lucknow.

2. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)

…………………Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 31^st day of December, 2025)

As per letter dated 02/05/2013 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference

has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') as per

Notification No. L-12012/98/2012-IR(B-I) dt. 02/05/2013. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of

Shri

Ambika Prasad S/o Shri Cheddi Lal workman with effect from 05.09.1978 and not

considering his name for

reemployment while reemploying others including the recruitment

of fresh hands is just fair & legal? If not, to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

Claimant/workman Ambika Prasad (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with averments

which may be concisely stated as hereunder:

(I) Claimant/applicant was employed under the Zonal Office, State Bank Of India Kanpur in Accounts

Department Main Branch, Kanpur in subordinate cadre. The service of the applicant was terminated on

05.09.1978 in violation of the provisions of Industrial disputes Act 1947. (Central) After the termination of

the service of the applicant new hands have been employed in place of the applicant in violation of Section

15 H of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

(II) The action of the employer in terminating the services of the applicant is illegal and is unfair labour

practice because the applicant was working on the permanent post, but after termination of the applicant new

hands had been employed. This is also against the principles of natural justice.

(III) The employer has done this type of unfair labour practice and illegal work and exploitation i.e. engaging

one workman and terminating his service after few days and then again engaging another person and again

terminating his services is being done with hundreds of persons. The applicant along with number of such

other victimised persons started agitation by staging Dharna, demonstrations etc. against the illegal, unfair

and unjust action of the State Bank of India.

(IV) Thereafter, due to protest of the workmen, the State Bank of India decided to hold tests/interview so that

regular and permanent appointment may be given to workmen who have already worked in the Bank.

2686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2026/CHAITRA 21, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(V) The action of the Bank in holding test/interview was illegal because under the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 the applicant was a retrenched employee and he was to be given appointment in

the Bank not on the basis of any test/interview. But directly by the Bank as provided under Section 25 H of

the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.

(VI) After the termination of the applicant so many new hand have been appointed by the Bank. As such the

action of the Bank is illegal and unjust and the applicant is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service

and full back wages.

(VII) The name of the applicant was within 20 of the waiting list of 1991. The applicant has not been given

appointment but all most all the persons from the said waiting list have been appointed. As such the action of

the Bank is illegal and unjust and the applicant is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and full

back wages.

Respondent side has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:

(I)

It is essential to mention that to abuse/misuse of the provisions of the I. D. Act 1947[14 of 1947]

instant industrial dispute has been raised by the applicant regarding his alleged termination from

05.09.78, which is not tenable in the eyes of law because above referred date of termination has not

found place in claim statement & rejoinder statement filed by the claimant before the conciliation

officer & on this alone ground case is liable to be dismissed at the very outset by the Hon'ble

Tribunal.

(II)

The alleged disengagement being of 1978 & 34 years have passed since then the industrial dispute

cannot be said to have survived & a stale alleged dispute can not be allowed be raised now.

(III)

It is specific to state that to create illegal pressure upon the bank's management, General Manager,

Lucknow as well as Zonal Manager, Kanpur have knowingly been made parties by the claimant in

the present dispute whereas claimant never worked for a day in both offices. It is made clear that

relationship of employer & employee does not exist between the rival parties. In the light of above

given facts claim is legally not maintainable & is deserved to be rejected forthwith by the hon'ble

court.

(IV)

It is necessary to add that claimant was not engaged in the bank against any post. To enrich our

contention it is narrated here that there is a prescribed procedure for appointment in the respondent

bank, which is evident from fact that appointment letter was not filed by the applicant along with

his claim statement before the Hon'ble Court.

(V)

In claim statement is mere reiterations. It is clearly submitted that applicant is not entitled to get

relief claimed from the hon'ble court. In the light of afore-mentioned true facts claim has no force of

law & on the face of given reply case may be turned down by the Hon'ble Tribunal.

Main question in this reference is that whether the action of management of State Bank of India in terminating the

services of Shri Ambika Prasad S/o Chhedi Lal with effect from 05.09.1978 is just fair & legal or not?

In our claim statement applicant is requested that applicant was employed of the said bank in account department

Main Branch in subordinate cadre and the applicant was terminated on 05.09.1978 in violation of the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. And further says when we protest then the State Bank of India decided to hold test

interview so that regular and permanent appointment may be given to workmen who have already worked in the bank.

In accordance to that bank in holding test/interview was illegal because under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. the applicant was a retrenched employee and he was to be given appointment in the Bank not on the basis

of any test/interview.

Due to malafide reasons bank did not give permanent appointment to the applicant. It came to the knowledge of the

applicant that he have passed the interview and his name within 20 of the waiting list for giving permanent

appointment in the bank. In that list almost candidates have been appointed by the bank but the bank has not given

appointment to the applicant and with other facts in last requested that in the interest of justice Hon‘ble Tribunal be

pleased to give the following relief read as under:

1. Reinstate in service with continuity of services and given full back wages and other attending benefits.

2. Any other suitable relief which the Hon‘ble Tribunal may deem fit under the circumstances and suitable

cost of the case may please also be awarded.

In reply of above claim statement bank filed written statement and in his written statement preliminary objection is

raised that applicant regarding his alleged termination from 05.09.1978, which is not tenable in the eyes of law

because above referred date of termination has not found place in claim statement & rejoinder statement filed by the

claimant before the conciliation officer.

Further in para stated that to create a legal pressure upon the bank‘s management have knowingly been made parties

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2026/चैत्र 21, 1948

2687

by the claimant in the present dispute whereas claimant never worked for a day in both offices. It is made clear that

relationship of employer & employee does not exist between the rival parties.

Further in para 6 stated that claimant was not engaged in the bank against any post and further stated interview letter

was not placed along with claim statement by the claimant before conciliation officer to prove his case.

After filing of above written statement, rejoinder is also filed by applicant.

Main question in this reference that applicant is employee in said bank as stated by him.

After perusal of order sheets it shows that so many date has been fixed for the evidence of applicant but applicant not

produce any evidence so my predecessor order on date 27.04.2023 is read as under

“Claimant is absent on repeated loud calls. Evidence of claimant side stands closed.

O.P. side declines to adduce evidence. Proceeding stands reserved for award.”

So, this is clear there is no any documentary or oral evidence is filed by applicant to prove his case such as

appointment letter, interview letter, waiting list etc.

Accordingly, it is not proved that applicant is employee in said bank as stated by him in claim statement.

Hence in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗Nil‘ award.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 31.12.2025

Sri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRINOSJANA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 माचव, 2026

का.आ. 533.—

(

)

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम

सि

लखनऊ

ृिचान

45/2024)

[सं.एल -22013/01/2026-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम- II)]

जयदीृ यादव, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2026

S.O. 533.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 45/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Food Corporation of India and their workmen

[No. L-22013/01/2026- IR (CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 45/2024

Ref. No. K-10(64)/2024-IR dated 31.07.2024

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

2688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2026/CHAITRA 21, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

U P Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Majdoor Sangathan Ayodhya.

AND

1. The Depot Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Sandila, Distt-Hardoi

2. The Area Manager, FCI, 140B Lohar Bagh, Sitapur

3. The Divisonal Manager, FCI, 7-R, Tilakmarg, Dalibagh, Lucknow

4. The GM FCI, UP Zonal Office, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

5. The Chairman, FCI Khadya Sadan, 16/20, Barahakhambha Lane, New Delhi

AWARD

By order No. K-10(64)/2024-IR dated 31.07.2024 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 the action of the management of FCI Sandila depot, Sandila, Hardoi in terminating the services of

workman Shri Mohd. Naeem w.e.f 07.02.2019 is justified or not? If not to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled for?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 45/2024 has been registered.

On 10.12.2024 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit with following relief:

“I. To grant the arrear of minimum guarantee wages to the claimant workman since 02.06.2006 till 07.02.2019,

II. To grant the benefit of regularization policy of Food Corporation of India passed in the year 1991 for Direct

Payment Employees.

III. To direct the Food Corporation of India management to grant the benefit of continuity of service till his date of

his superannuation.

IV.To grant any other relief which this authority deems fit to be passed in the interest of justice.”

On behalf of the respondents statement of defense filed on 29.03.2025 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2026/चैत्र 21, 1948

2689

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.

27^th February, 2026

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 माचव, 2026

का.आ. 534.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] लखनऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

41/2024)dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[सं. एल -22013/01/2026-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम- II)]

जयदीृ यादव, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2026

S.O. 534.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 41/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen,

[No. L-22013/01/2026- IR (CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 41/2024

Ref. No. K-10(39)/2024-IR dated 26.07.2024

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

U P Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Majdoor Sangathan Ayodhya.

AND

1. The Depot Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Sandila, Distt-Hardoi

2. The Area Manager, FCI, 140B Lohar Bagh, Sitapur

3. The Divisonal Manager, FCI, 7-R, Tilakmarg, Dalibagh, Lucknow

4. The GM FCI, UP Zonal Office, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

5. The Chairman, FCI Khadya Sadan, 16/20, Barahakhambha Lane, New Delhi

2690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2026/CHAITRA 21, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By order No. K-10(39)/2024-IR dated 26.07.2024 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 the action of the management of FCI Sandila depot, Sandila, Hardoi in terminating the

services fo workman Shri Dulare w.e.f 07.02.2019 is justified or not? If not to what relief the

concerned workman is entitled for?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 41/2024has been registered.

On 10.12.2024 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit with following relef:

“I. To grant the arrear of minimum guarantee wages to the claimant workman since 01.01.1986 till

07.02.2019,

II. To grant the benefit of regularization policy of Food Corporation of India passed in the year 1991 for

Direct Payment Employees.

III. To direct the Food Corporation of India management to grant the benefit of continuity of service till his

date of his superannuation.

IV. To grant the service benefit such as bonus, leave encashment etc. as per entitlement under Food

Corporation of India policy of DPS system issued in the year 1991.

V. To grant any other relief which this authority deems fit to be passed in the interest of justice.”

On behalf of the respondents statement of defense filed on 29.03.2025 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.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2026/चैत्र 21, 1948

2691

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

Award as above.

Lucknow.

27^th February, 2026

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 माचव, 2026

का.आ. 535.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

-

सि

-

] लखनऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[सं. एल -22013/01/2026-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम- II)]

जयदीृ यादव, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2026

S.O. 535.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 44/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen,

[No. L-22013/01/2026- IR (CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 44/2024

Ref. No. K-10(57)/2024-IR dated 31.07.2024

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

U P Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Majdoor Sangathan Ayodhya.

AND

1. The Depot Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Sandila, Distt-Hardoi

2. The Area Manager, FCI, 140B Lohar Bagh, Sitapur

3. The Divisonal Manager, FCI, 7-R, Tilakmarg, Dalibagh, Lucknow

4. The GM FCI, UP Zonal Office, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

5. The Chairman, FCI Khadya Sadan, 16/20, Barahakhambha Lane, New Delhi

AWARD

By order No. K-10(57)/2024-IR dated 31.07.2024 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 the action of the management of FCI Sandila depot, Sandila, Hardoi in terminating the services of

workman Shri Anmer Dash w.e.f 07.02.2019 is justified or not? If not to what relief the concerned workman

is entitled for?"

2692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 11, 2026/CHAITRA 21, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 44/2024 has been registered.

On 10.12.2024 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit with following relief:

“I. To grant the arrear of minimum guarantee wages to the claimant workman since till 07.02.2019,

II. To grant the benefit of regularization policy of Food Corporation of India passed in the year 1991 for

Direct Payment Employees.

III. To direct the Food Corporation of India management to grant the benefit of continuity of service till his

date of his superannuation.

IV.To grant any other relief which this authority deems fit to be passed in the interest of justice.”

On behalf of the respondents statement of defense filed on 29.03.2025 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.

27^th February, 2026

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अप्रैल 11, 2026/चैत्र 21, 1948

2693

नई ददल्ली, 23 माचव, 2026

का.आ. 536. —vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh;

ljdkj भारतीय खाद्य जनगम ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa

सि -

] लखनऊ ds iapkV (ृिचान

46/2024)

dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[सं. एल -22013/01/2026-vkbZ- vkj- (lh.एम- II)]

जयदीृ यादव, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2026

S.O. 536.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 46/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of Food

Corporation of India and their workmen

[No. L-22013/01/2026- IR (CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 46/2024

Ref. No. K-10(45)/2024-IR dated 26.07.2024

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

U P Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Majdoor Sangathan Ayodhya.

AND

1. The Depot Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Sandila, Distt-Hardoi

2. The Area Manager, FCI, 140B Lohar Bagh, Sitapur

3. The Divisonal Manager, FCI, 7-R, Tilakmarg, Dalibagh, Lucknow

4. The GM FCI, UP Zonal Office, TC/3V, Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

5. The Chairman, FCI Khadya Sadan, 16/20, Barahakhambha Lane, New Delhi

AWARD

By order No. K-10(45)/2024-IR dated 26.07.2024 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 the action of the management of FCI Sandila depot, Sandila, Hardoi in terminating the services of

workman Shri Dayaram w.e.f 07.02.2019 is justified or not? If not to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled for?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 46/2024 has been registered.

On 10.12.2024 claimant filed claim statement supported by an affidavit with following relief:

“I. To grant the arrear of minimum guarantee wages to the claimant workman since 02.02.1986 till

07.02.2019,

II. To grant the benefit of regularization policy of Food Corporation of India passed in the year 1991 for

Direct Payment Employees.

2694