2774 GI/2026

(3993)

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. 16]

नई ददल् ली, अप्रैल 26—मई 2, 2026, िजनवार/वैिाख 6—वैिाख 12, 1948

No. 16]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 26—MAY 2, 2026, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 6––VAISAKHA 12, 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)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 3 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 730.—भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम अजधजनयम, 1956 (1956 का 31) की धारा 4(2)(घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त

िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री प्रिांत कुमार गोयल के स्ट्थान ृर सुश्री िाजलनी ृंजडत

(संयुि सजचव, भारत सरकार, जवत्त मंत्रालय, जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग) को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक

भारतीय जीवन बीमा जनगम के बोडड में जनदेिक के ृद ृर नाजमत करती िै।

[ई फा.सं. 6/2(i)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-13052026-272416

CG-DL-W-13052026-272416

3994 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2025

S.O. 730.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4(2)(d) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby nominates Ms Shalini Pandit (Joint Secretary, Government of

India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as Director on the Board of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Parshant Kumar Goyal.

[e F. No. 6/2(i)/2022-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 3 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 731.—बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण अजधजनयम, 1999 (1999 का 41) की धारा 4 द्वारा

प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री प्रिांत कुमार गोयल के स्ट्थान ृर सुश्री िाजलनी ृंजडत

भारतीय बीमा जवजनयामक और जवकास प्राजधकरण में अंिकाजलक सदस्ट्य नाजमत करती िै।

[ई फा. सं. 6/2(ii)/2022-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2025

S.O. 731.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development

Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999), the Central Government hereby nominates Ms Shalini Pandit (Joint Secretary,

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) as part-time member of the Insurance

Regulatory and Development Authority of India, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Parshant

Kumar Goyal.

[e F. No. 6/2(ii)/2022-BO.I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 732.—भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक अजधजनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की धारा 20 की उृ-धारा (1) के साथ

ृठ त धारा 19 के खण्ड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री रजव रंजन (जन् म

जतजथ: 21.9.1968) उृ प्रबंध जनदेिक, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक को कायडभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से उनकी अजधवर्षिता की

आयु प्राप्त करने की तारीख, अथाडत 30.9.2028 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक में

प्रबंध जनदेिक के ृद ृर जनयुि करती िै।

[फा. सं. 2/1/2025-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2025

S.O. 732.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of section

20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ravi Ranjan

(DoB: 21.09.1968), Deputy Managing Director in State Bank of India as Managing Director in State Bank of India

with effect from the date of his assumption of charge of the office, till the date of his attaining the age of

superannuation i.e., 30.09.2028, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 2/1/2025-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

3995

नई ददल्ली, 16 ददसम् बर, 2025

का.आ. 733.—भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक अजधजनयम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की धारा 20 की उृ-धारा (1) के साथ

ृठ त धारा 19 के खण्ड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्री अजिनी कुमार

जतवारी (जन् म जतजथ: 29.12.1967) प्रबंध जनदेिक, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक के कायडकाल की वतडमान अजधसूजचत अवजध, जो

ददनांक 27.1.2026 को समाप्त िो रिी िै, से आगे कायडभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से उनकी अजधवर्षिता की तारीख

अथाडत 31.12.2027 तक अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक में प्रबंध जनदेिक के ृद ृर ृुन:

जनयुि करती िै।

[फा. सं. 2/1/2025-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2025

S.O. 733.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of section 19 read with sub-section (1) of section 20

of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government hereby re-appoints Shri Ashwini Kumar

Tewari (DoB: 29.12.1967) as Managing Director in State Bank of India with effect from the date of his assumption of

charge of the post, beyond his currently notified term which is ending on 27.01.2026, till the date of his

superannuation i.e., 31.12.2027, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 2/1/2025-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 3 माचड, 2026

का.आ. 734.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणड उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 के ृैरा 3 के उृ-ृैरा (1) के साथ ृठ त

बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजडन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रदत्त

िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, श्रीमती सोनाली सेनगुप्ता के स्ट्थान ृर श्री थॉमस मैथ्यू, प्रधान

मु्‍य मिाप्रबंधक (सेवाजनवृत्त), भारतीय ठरजवड बैंक को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेिों तक, इजण्डयन ओवरसीज बैंक

के बोडड में जनदेिक नाजमत करती िै।

[फा. सं. 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 3rd March, 2026

S.O. 734.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the

Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby

nominates Shri Thomas Mathew, Principal Chief General Manager (Retired), Reserve Bank of India as Director on

the Board of Indian Overseas Bank with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Smt Sonali Sengupta.

[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 15 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 735.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध और प्रकीणड उृबंध) स्ट्कीम, 1970 (ददनांक 17.11.2022 की अजधसूचना

के माध्यम से संिोजधत) के ृैरा 8 (1) के साथ ृठ त बैंककारी कंृनी (उृक्रमों का अजडन और अंतरण) अजधजनयम, 1970

की धारा 9 की उृधारा (3) के खंड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, बैंक आफ

बड़़ौदा के मु्‍य मिाप्रबंधक श्री सुिांत कुमार मोिन्ती (जन्म जतजथिः 1.8.1969) को कायडभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से

तीन विड की अवजध के जलए अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो, बैंक आफ मिाराष्ट्र में कायडृालक जनदेिक के ृद

ृर जनयुि करती िै।

[ई फा. सं. 4/4(ii)/2024-बीओ-I]

संजय कुमार जमश्र, अवर सजचव

3996 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th April, 2026

S.O. 735.—In exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, read with paragraph 8 (1) of the Nationalised

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 (amended vide notification dated 17.11.2022), the

Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sushanta Kumar Mohanty (DoB: 01.08.1969), Chief General Manager,

Bank of Baroda as Executive Director in Bank of Maharashtra for a period of three years with effect from the date of

assumption of charge of the post, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[eF. No. 4/4/2024-BO-I]

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 736.—भारतीय जनयाडत-आयात बैंक अजधजनयम, 1981 (1981 का 28) की धारा 6 की उृ-धारा (2) के

साथ ृठ त धारा 6 की उृ-धारा (1) के खंड (कक) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्रीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा,

श्री तरुण िमाड (जन्म जतजथ: 16.03.1974), उृ प्रबंध जनदेिक (डीएमडी), भारतीय जनयाडत-आयात बैंक (एजजजम बैंक)

का कायडकाल उनके वतडमान कायडकाल के बाद, जो 17.04.2026 को समाप्त िो रिा िै, दो (02) विों की अवजध के जलए,

अथाडत् 17.04.2028 तक, या अगले आदेि तक, जो भी ृिले िो, बढाती िै।

[फा. सं. 9/4/2021-आईएफ-I]

एस.के. ससि, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 736.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 6 read with sub-

section (2) of section 6 of the Export-Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (No. 28 of 1981), the Central Government

hereby extends the tenure of Shri Tarun Sharma (DOB: 16.03.1974), Deputy Managing Director (DMD), Export-

Import Bank of India (Exim Bank), for a further period of two (02) years beyond his present tenure ending on

17.04.2026, i.e. upto 17.04.2028, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/4/2021-IF-I]

S.K. SINGH, Under Secy.

राजस्ट्व जवभाग

(जिन्दी-2)

नई ददल्ली, 27 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 737.—केन्र सरकार, राजभािा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम 10

के उृ-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में राजस्ट्व जवभाग के केन्रीय अप्रत्यक्ष कर एवं सीमा िुल्क बोडड के अधीन जनम्नजलजखत

कायाडलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाठरयों एवं कमडचाठरयों ने जिन्दी का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को

अजधसूजचत करती िै।

क्रम सं.

कायाडलय का नाम

केंरीय कर और केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, एणाडकुलम मंडल, कोजि आयुिालय

केंरीय कर और केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, काक्कनाड मंडल, कोजि आयुिालय

केंरीय कर और केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, ृेरुम्बावूर मंडल, कोजि आयुिालय

केंरीय कर और केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, इडुक्की मंडल, कोजि आयुिालय

केंरीय कर और केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, आलुवा मंडल, कोजि आयुिालय

केंरीय कर और केंरीय उत्ृाद िुल्क, चालजकुडी मंडल, कोजि आयुिालय

[फा. सं. ई-11017/3/2017-जिन्दी-2-अजधसूचना]

प्रीजत सेलारे, उृ जनदेिक(रा.भा.)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

3997

(Department of Revenue)

(Hindi-2)

New Delhi, the 27th April, 2026

S.O. 737.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the

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

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

language Hindi.

No.

Name of the Office

Central Tax and Central Excise, Ernakulam Division, Kochi Commissionerate.

Central Tax and Central Excise, Kakkanad Division, Kochi Commissionerate.

Central Tax and Central Excise, Perumbavoor Division, Kochi Commissionerate.

Central Tax and Central Excise, Idukki Division, Kochi Commissionerate

Central Tax and Central Excise, Aluva Division, Kochi Commissionerate

Central Tax and Central Excise, Chalakudy Division, Kochi Commissionerate

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

PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)

इस्ट्ृात मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 738.—केंर सरकार ने ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन (भूजम उृयोग के अजधकार का अजडन)

अजधजनयम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जजसे इसमें इसके ृश्चात् उि अजधजनयम किा गया िै) की धारा 3 की

उृ-धारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई, भारत सरकार के इस्ट्ृात मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना सं्‍या सा.का.जन. 679(अ),

तारीख 20 जसतम्बर 2023, जो भारत के असाधारण राजृत्र क्रमांक 537, तारीख 20 जसतम्बर 2023 में प्रकाजित की

गई थी, द्वारा उस अजधसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में छत्तीसगढ राज्य में "बैलाडीला से नगरनार क्षेत्र

(एनएमडीसी जलजमटेड ृैलेट प्लांट नगरनार)" के अंतगडत ल़ौि अयस्ट्कस्ट्लरी के ृठरविन के जलए एनएमडीसी जलजमटेड

द्वारा स्ट्लरी ृाइृलाइनऔर जल ृाइृलाइन, ऑजप्टकल फाइबर केबल सजित ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के प्रयोजन के जलए

उृयोग के अजधकार का अजडन के अृने आिय की घोिणा की थी;

और उि राजृत्र अजधसूचना की सूचना संबंजधत भू-स्ट्वाजमयों को तारीख 16 जनवरी, 2026 तक उृलब्ध करा

दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राजधकारी ने, उि अजधजनयम की धारा 6 की उृधारा (1) के अधीन केन्रीय सरकार को ठरृोटड

प्रस्ट्तुत कर दी िै;

और केन्रीय सरकार ने, उि ठरृोटड ृर जवचार करने के ृश्चात् और यि समाधान िो जाने ृर दक उि भूजम

ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के जलए अृेजक्षत िै, उसमें उृयोग के अजधकार का अजडन करने का जवजनश्चय दकया िै;

अतिः अब, केन्रीय सरकार, उि अजधजनयम की धारा 6 की उृधारा (1) द्वारा प्रद्त्त्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते

हुए, यि घोिणा करती िै दक इस अजधसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में जवजनर्ददष्ट भूजम में ृाइृलाइन जबछाने के जलए उृयोग

के अजधकार का अजडन दकया जाए;

3998 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

और केन्रीय सरकार, उि अजधजनयम की धारा 6 की उृधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यि

जनदेि देती िै दक उि भूजम में उृयोग का अजधकार इस घोिणा के प्रकािन की तारीख से, केन्रीय सरकार में जनजित िोने

के बजाए, सभी जवल्लंगमों से मुि िोकर, एनएमडीसी जलजमटेड में जनजित िोगी I

ृेरोजलयम और खजनज ृाइृलाइन अजधजनयम, 1962 की धारा 10 के अधीन दकसी भी क्षजतृूर्षत के

जलएएनएमडीसीजलजमटेड ृूणडतया उत्तरदायी िोगी और ृाइृलाइन से संबंजधत दकसी भी मामले ृर केन्रीय सरकार के

जवरुद्ध कोई वाद दावा या कानूनी कायडवािी निीं िो सकेगी I

अनुसूची

क्र.

सं.

जजला

तिसील

म़ौजा

खसरा/ कम्ृाटडमेंट नंबर

भूजम का वगड

भूजम जजसमें उृयोगकताड

केअजधकार की आवश्यकता

िै(िेजटेयर में(

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

बस्ट्तर

बास्ट्तानार

763

जनजी भूजम

0.0764

योग

0.0764

बस्ट्तर

बास्ट्तानार

इरृा

19/3

जनजी भूजम

0.0930

19/2

जनजी भूजम

0.7170

योग

0.8100

बस्ट्तर

बास्ट्तानार

दकलेृाल

532

जनजी भूजम

0.0132

315/1

जनजी भूजम

0.2720

315/1/फ

जनजी भूजम

0.6330

315/1/ट

जनजी भूजम

0.2583

315/1/9542

जनजी भूजम

0.4460

315/67

जनजी भूजम

0.1310

315/16

जनजी भूजम

0.3180

315/1/त्र

जनजी भूजम

0.3990

315/66/8

जनजी भूजम

0.2407

315/66/10

जनजी भूजम

0.2850

315/48

िासकीय भूजम

0.5080

381/1/ग

जनजी भूजम

0.4200

381/1/घ

जनजी भूजम

0.6790

381/31

जनजी भूजम

0.0990

763

जनजी भूजम

0.3240

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

3999

381/30

जनजी भूजम

0.2230

381/1/9575

जनजी भूजम

0.2700

381/टु

जनजी भूजम

0.0600

381/49

जनजी भूजम

0.1920

381/1/ि/10

जनजी भूजम

0.0780

381/1/ि/9

जनजी भूजम

0.3030

381/57/झ/1

जनजी भूजम

0.1797

381/57/छ

जनजी भूजम

0.3024

381/57/घ/3

जनजी भूजम

0.2467

381/1/9554/8

जनजी भूजम

0.4110

381/1/9554/1

जनजी भूजम

0.4052

योग

7.6972

बस्ट्तर

दरभा

जडलजमली

283/2/ग

जनजी भूजम

0.0030

283/2/घ

जनजी भूजम

0.0090

योग

0.0120

[फा. सं. एस-28030/1/2025-आरएम (20520)]

अररदम च़ौधरी, उृ सजचव

MINISTRY OF STEEL

New Delhi, the 21st April, 2026

S.O. 738.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel G.S.R. No. 679

dated 20^th September 2023, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

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

the Extraordinary Gazette of India No. 537 dated 20^th September 2023, the Central Government declared its intention

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

laying Slurry Pipeline ―Bailadila to Nagarnar area (NMDC Limited Pellet Plant, Nagarnar)‖ and water pipeline

along with optical fiber cable for the transportation of iron ore slurry in the State of Chhattisgarh by

NMDC Limited;

And whereas, copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the concerned land owners by

16^th January 2026;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted

report to the Central Government;

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

land is required for laying the pipelines, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

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

Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this

notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

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

Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipelines shall, instead of vesting in

the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in NMDC Limited, free from all

encumbrances.

4000 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NMDC Limited shall be exclusively liable for any compensation in terms of Section 10 of the P&MP

Act 1962 and no suit, claim or legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government on any matter relating to

the pipelines.

SCHEDULE

Serial

Number

District

Tehsil

Village

Khasara or

compartment

Number

Category

Lands in which

right of user is

acquired

(In Hectares)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Bastar

Bastanar

763

Private Land

0.0764

Total

0.0764

Bastar

Bastanar

Irpa

19/3

Private Land

0.0930

19/2

Private Land

0.7170

Total

0.8100

Bastar

Bastanar

Kilepal

532

Private Land

0.0132

315/1

Private Land

0.2720

315/1/Fa

Private Land

0.6330

315/1/Ta

Private Land

0.2583

315/1/9542

Private Land

0.4460

315/67

Private Land

0.1310

315/16

Private Land

0.3180

315/1/Tra

Private Land

0.3990

315/66/8

Private Land

0.2407

315/66/10

Private Land

0.2850

315/48

Government Land

0.5080

381/1/Ga

Private Land

0.4200

381/1/Gha

Private Land

0.6790

381/31

Private Land

0.0990

763

Private Land

0.3240

381/30

Private Land

0.2230

381/1/9575

Private Land

0.2700

381/Tu

Private Land

0.0600

381/49

Private Land

0.1920

381/1/Ha/10

Private Land

0.0780

381/1/Ha/9

Private Land

0.3030

381/57/Jha/1

Private Land

0.1797

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4001

381/57/Chh

Private Land

0.3024

381/57/Gh/3

Private Land

0.2467

381/1/9554/8

Private Land

0.4110

381/1/9554/1

Private Land

0.4052

Total

7.6972

Bastar

Darbha

Dilmili

283/2/Ga

Private Land

0.0030

283/2/Gha

Private Land

0.0090

Total

0.0120

[F. No. S-28030/1/2025-RM (20520)]

ARINDAM CHAUDHARY, Dy.Secy.

नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 739.—भारतीय जवमानृत्तन प्राजधकरण अजधजनयम, 1994 (1994 की सं. 55) के खंड 3 और खंड 5 के

उृ-खंड 1 (ii) के तित प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंरीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा श्री वीर जवक्रम यादव, मिाजनदेिक,

नागर जवमानन मिाजनदेिालय, नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय को भारतीय जवमानृत्तन प्राजधकरण के बोडड में ृदेन सदस्ट्य के

ृद ृर तत्काल प्रभाव से, अगले आदेिों तक जनयुि करती िै।

[फा. सं. एवी-24011/8/2022-एएआई-एमओसीए]

असंगबा चुबा आओ, संयुज त सजचव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 739.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 and Sub-Section 1 (ii) of Section 5 of the

Airports of India Act, 1994 (No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Vir Vikram Yadav,

DirectorGeneral, Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation as an Ex-officio Member on the

Board of Airports Authority of India with Immediate effect, until further orders.

[F. No. AV-24011/8/2022-AAI-MOCA]

ASANGBA CHUBA AO, Jt. Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 740.—भारतीय जवमानृत्तन प्राजधकरण अजधजनयम, 1994 (1994 की सं. 55) के खंड 3 और खंड 5 के

उृ-खंड 1 (ii) के तित प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंरीय सरकार एतद् द्वारा श्री असंगबा चुबा आओ, संयुि

सजचव, नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय को भारतीय जवमानृत्तन प्राजधकरण के बोडड में अंिकाजलक सदस्ट्य के ृद ृर तत्काल

प्रभाव से, उनके कायडभार ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन विड की अवजध, अथवा अगले आदेिों तक, जो भी ृिले िो,

जनयुि करती िै।

[फा. सं. एवी-24011/8/2022-एएआई-एमओसीए]

िोजभत गुप् ता, संयुज त सजचव

4002 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 740.—In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 and Sub-Section 1 (ii) Of Section 5 of the

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (No. 55 of 1994), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Asangba Chuba

Ao, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation as a Part-time Member on the Board of Airports Authority of India

with immediate effect, for a period of three years from the date on which he assumes office, or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. AV-24011/8/2022-AAI-MOCA]

SHOBHIT GUPTA, Jt. Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 741.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

जविाखाृत्तनम ृोटड 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;

ds iapkV (a9/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- आई आर (बी-II)-33]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 741.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 9/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Visakhapatnam Port

Trust and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-33]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5^th February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 9/2025

Between:

The General Secretary,

The Visakhapatnam Port Employees‘ Union(HMS),

Dharmasakti Bhavan, 26-15-204, Visakhapatnam,

Andhra Pradesh-53001

..…. …Petitioner

AND

1. The Chairman

Visakhapatanam Port Authority

Port Area, Visakhapatnam

… …Respondents

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4003

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondents: Sri Ram, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 8/42/2024-B1 dated 06.01.2025 referred the

following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of Visakhapatnam Port Trust and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Visakhapatnam Port Authority in terminating the services of s/sri

B. Nookaraju, G. Syamala Rao, V. Nageswara Rao, V. Ramu, K. Mahesh Khanna, T. Trinadha Rao and G. Appa Rao

who were engaged as pool khalsis is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?‘‘

he reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 9/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent. Respondent present. Despite sufficient opportunities, the Petitioner has failed to file

the cliam statement as directed by this Court vide order date 08-07.2025. Therefore, a ‗No-claim‘

Award is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the ^3rd day of

February, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 742.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

iatkc uS”kuy cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; चंडीगढ-I ds iapkV (23/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- आई आर (बी-II)-35]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 742.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 23/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chandigarh-I as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-35]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4004 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

(Present:-Mr. Kamal Kant, Presiding-cum-Link Officer).

ID No. 23/2025

Gagandeep Kaur, C.O Trackon Courier Near Main Post Office Jagraon, Ludhiana, Punjab 142026.

-------- Workman

Versus

1. General manager Punjab National Bank, Dhudike.

----Respondents

Award

Passed on:26.02.2026

Present ID Case has been registered on the basis of communication through Samadhan Portal. After

registration of the case, notice was sent to workman. Notice under registered cover served properly and delivered to

the workman as per postal track report, but none appeared on behalf of workman till the date for filing any claim

petition.

Since the workman did not appear before this Court for filing his claim statement, it is useless to keep this

proceeding pending. Therefore, the proceedings is dismissed for non-prosecution.

File after completion be consigned to the record room.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 743.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdk

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 - 2, ds iapkV (23/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2026- आई आर (बी-I)-81]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 743.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.23/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Mumbai-2, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Railway and

their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2026- IR(B-I)-81]

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

APPLICATION REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/23 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4005

First Party No.1 M/s. A-1 Laundry Services.,

C/o. All Services Global Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. A/G-3, Kama Industrial Estate,

Near Village Pahadi,

Near HUB,

Goregaon (E),

Mumbai- 400 063.

State – Maharashtra.

First Party No.2 M/s. Central Railway.,

The Sr. DME (Coaching)

Central Railway,

Annex Building,

2^nd Floor,

CST,

Mumbai- 400 001.

State – Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Central Railway Contract Labour Sangh)

The Divisional Secretary,

(Shri R. J. Singh),

Central Railway Contract Labour Sangh (CRCLS)

Mumbai Division,

Sangh Sadan,

Dadar,

Mumbai- 400 028.

State – Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management No.1

Mr. N. S. Paranjpe.

Advocate.

Management No.2

Mr. B. K. Ashok.

Advocate.

Workmen

: Mr. S. Anchan

Advocate

AWARD

(Delivered on 11-03-2026)

This is an application Reference u/s. 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, filed by the Second Party.

2. This matter has taken in special campaign today in court but on repeated calls one counsel for the respondent

No.2 Mr. B. K. Ashok is present before the court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/union. From perusal

of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the court since 23.12.2019. The

petitioner has not filed his evidence to prove the contents of his case. No other evidence has been filed by the

petitioner/union to prove his case. The petitioner/union is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the

union/petitioner is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the union/petitioner is not proved.

4006 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hence it is ordered,

ORDER

The termination of the second party/workmen is legal, proper and justified. The workmen is not entitled to any relief.

Date: 11-03-2026

Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 744.— 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 fookn esa

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

ds iapkV (11/2018) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/83/2017- आई आर (बी- II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 744.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 11/2018) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank

and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/83/2017- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

I.D. No. 11/2018

Ref NO.L-12012/83/2017 (IR(B-II)): Dated: 16/01/2018

Shri Sabind Kumar

S/o Late Sh. Rambhajan, Village Mateli,

PO: Jarayal Kala, Janpad Faizabad. …………... Claimant

Versus

1- The Chief Manager/Circle Head,

Punjab National Bank, Divisional Office,

Devkali Road, Janpad Faizabad.

2- The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank,

D/o Human Resources Development,

Divisional Office, Devkali Raod,

Reidganj, Faizabad. .………….. Respondents

AWARD

By order NO.L-12012/83/2017 (IR(B-II)): Dated: 16/01/2018, the present industrial dispute has been

referred for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

"Whether the action of the Management of Chief Manager/Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Divisional

Office, Faizabad and Zonal Manager, Faizabad in termination of Shri Sabind Kumar, s/o Late Shri

Rambhajan from 07/04/2017 alleged to be working from 18/11/2015 in PNB, Rojagaonjs Legal and justified

? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4007

Accordingly, an I.D. Case No. 11/2018 has been registered.

In response to which claimant, filed his statement of claim.

In brief facts as stated therein are that he was appointed as casual labour with the respondent on 08.11.2015, and

worked up till 07.04.2017, however his services were retrenched/terminated without complying provisions of Section

25F of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Accordingly it is prayed by claimant, that he may be reinstated back in his services.

Thereafter on behalf of respondent, written statement has been filed denying the contention as taken by claimant in

his claim petition to which respondent had filed rejoinder affidavit.

On 22.04.2019 on behalf of claimant document no. (W6-1) to (W6-31), were filed in support of his case, and on

behalf of respondent/Bank documents no.(M7-1) to (M7-4) were filed on 17.02.2020, on record.

Thereafter on 24.12.2020, claimant in order to support his case has filed evidence on affidavit (examination in

chief)(W-8).

From the perusal of record its transpired that in spite of repeated opportunity given to applicant, he does not turn up

for his cross examination on the evidence in chief filed by him, so by order dated 10.09.2024, right of workman to

cross examine himself on his evidence on affidavit (Examination in Chief) has been closed.

Thereafter the matter was listed for hearing, in spite of notice none appeared on behalf of workman.

Today (05.02.2026) the matter was taken up in the revise cause list neither workman nor any counsel/LR appear on

behalf of the workman, in spite of notice.

Shri AP Singh learned counsel for respondent is present.

I have heard Shri AP Singh learned counsel for respondent and perused the record, keeping in view the above said

facts, this is a case of no evidence because worker did not cross examined himself on the evidence filed by him on

affidavit (examination in chief) so the case as set up by him has not been proved as per the relevant provision

Evidence Act, keeping the said facts and 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."

AWARD

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

Award as above.

Lucknow.

24^th February, 2026.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

4008 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 22 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 745.— 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 fookn esa dsUnzh;

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

ds iapkV (16/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- आई आर (बी- II)-36]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 22nd April, 2026

S.O. 745.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 16/2021) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and

their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-36]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. LUCKNOW

PRESENT

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

PRESIDING OFFICER

I. D. No. 16/2021

BETWEEN

Dhruv Shukla, S/o Shri Onkar Nath Shukla, R/o Villa Rukhara, PO-Bhadfr

Distt - Sitapur - 261135

AND

(1) M/s Sainik Security Services, S-20/53-33, Budh Vihar Colony, Gaal Road, Cantt, Varanasi.

(2) Allahabad Bank, presently Indian Bank, Branch, Ishanagar, Distt. Lakhipur Khiri

(3) Allahabad Bank, presently Indian Bank, Divisional Office, Lahimpur Khiri

AWARD

Sri Dhruv Shukla S/o Sri Onkar Nath Shukla, claimant filed claim petition before this Tribunal on 25.01.2021 u/s 2A

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 13/2016 has been registered.

Claimant in his claim statement, prayed for following relief:

“क प्रजतवादीगण द्वारा जबना दकसी कारण, जबना दकसी आरोृ ृत्र तथा उस ृर सफाई प्रस्ट्तुत करने का कोई अवसर ददये,

जबना दकसी नोठटस, नोठटस ृे, और जबना दकसी प्रकार की छटनी क्षजतृूर्षत आदद का भुगतान दकये, म़ौजखक आदेि के माध्यम

से प्राथी को ददनांक 25-82020 से कायड से प्रथक / वंजचत दकये जाने को अनुजचत और अवैधाजनक घोजित करते हुए सवेतन

अटूट सेवा में बिाल दकये जाने का आदेि ृाठरत करने की कृृा करें।

ख बै की की अवजध का ृूरा ृूरा वेतन और अन्य जितलाभ, जो उन्िें जनरन्तर सेवा में बने रिने की जस्ट्थजत में प्राप्त िोते.

ददलाये जाने का आदेि ृाठरत करने की कृृा करें।

ग यि दक वाद के संचालन का उजचत िजाड खचाड भी ददलाया जाए।”

On behalf of the respondent filed preliminary objecaiton, with prayer to reject claim of the workman.

Thereafter, workman filed rejoinder on 21.01.2022.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4009

From the perusal of record, it is clearly established that claimant/workman has not filed evidence on affidavit in

support of his case in spite of several opportunities; and it is a case of no evidence from the side of workman/claimant

in support of his case.

Thus, in view of the above said facts and 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 did not file any evidence on affidavit in support of his case, so it is a case of no evidence filed on

behalf of workman in support of case, 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.

06^th February, 2026

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 746.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ऑफ बड़़ौदा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ- 2, ds iapkV (48/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/27/2019- आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026

S.O. 746.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 48/2019) 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 Baroda and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/27/2019- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [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-2/48 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. M/s. Bank of Baroda.

The Chairman & Managing Director,

Bank Of Baroda,

Head Office, Baroda Bhawan,

R. C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri,

Baroda – 390007.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (All India Bank of Baroda Karmachari Sena)

The General Secretary,

All India Bank of Baroda Karmachari Sena,

10/12, Bank of Baroda Building (MMO),

Mezzanine Floor,

Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort,

District- Sangli,

Mumbai – 400 001,

State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management :

No appearance

Workmen

No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 09-03-2026)

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- 12011/27/2019-IR (B-II) dated 29.08.2019. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

“Whether the claim of the Union that the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in not implementing the

rotational transfer of staff as per policy is just and legal? If yes, what relief the Union is entitled to?”

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 despite service of notices. No Statement of Claim and Written Statements

have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove his

claim. The petitioner/union is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/union is not

interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/union is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4011

ORDER

The claim of the Union, that the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in not implementing the

rotational transfer of staff as per policy is not just and not legal. The Union is not entitled to any relief.

Date: 09-03-2026

Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 747.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

जवािरलाल नेिप ृोटड रस्ट्ट ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn

esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ - 2, ds iapkV (50/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-34025/01/2019- आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026

S.O. 747.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.50/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Mumbai -2 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port

Trust and their workmen.

[No. L-34025/01/2019- 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-2/50 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

First Party No. 1. M/s. Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust

The Chairman,

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust,

Administrative Building,

Sheva,

Navi Mumbai – 400 707,

State: Maharashtra.

2. M/s. Ekta Enterprises

M/s. Ekta Enterprises

Unit JNPT, 606,

Time Square,

Sector-5,

CBD Belapur,

4012 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Navi Mumbai – 400 614,

State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (New Maritime General Kamgar Sanghatana)

Mr. Mahindra Gharat, President

New Maritime General Kamgar Sanghatana

13/14, Royal Residency, Plot No.281,

Visharli Naka, Above Kanak Automobiles,

Panvel : 410 206,

State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management No.1

Mr. L. L. D‘Souza.

Advocate

Management No.2

Mr. J. Sawant.

Advocate

Workmen

Mr. A. Kulkarni.

Advocate

AWARD

(Delivered on 09-03-2026)

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- 34025/01/2019-IR (B-II) dated 25.09.2019. The terms

of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

“Whether the Charter of Demands for wage revision raised by New Maritime & General Kamgar

Sanghatana against M/s. Ekta Enterprises, Contractor of JNPT is fair, reasonable and justified? If yes,

what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

The case is called out today. Ms. Priyanka Sawant, learned counsel for the first party No.1 is present before

the court but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/union on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is

apparent that, the petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 10.02.2022 long back. No Statement of

Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has been filed

by the petitioner to prove his claim. The petitioner/union is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that,

the petitioner/union is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/union is not proved.

So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The Charter of Demands for wage revision raised by New Maritime & General Kamgar Sanghatana

against M/s. Ekta Enterprises, Contractor of JNPT is not fair, not reasonable and not justified. The

workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Date: 09-03-2026

Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4013

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 748.— 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 fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (a6/2025) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- आई आर (बी- II)-37]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026

S.O. 748.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 6/2025) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-37]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 6/2025

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 23-02-2026

Smt. P. Parimala,

W/o Paranthaman,

27, Rajiv Gandhi Street,

Dr. Khan Nagar,

Nesapakkam,

Chennai-600 078

1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager (CDO),

Indian Bank,

CO: HRM Department,

254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 001.

2^nd Party / Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner :

None

For the Respondent

None

Award

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order No. 7/49/2024/B4/ 300075419/

ADJ/A1, dated 10.12.2024 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

4014 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―Whether the termination of casual employee Smt. P. Parimala by Indian Bank is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief Smt. P. Parimala is entitled to?‖

Onreceipt of the above reference dated 10.12.2024 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was

registered as ID No. 6/2025 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to

04.06.2025. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further

adjournments to 04.08.2025, 17.09.2025, 12.11.2025 and 18.12.2025. The Petitioner did not turn up. It reveals from

the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 10.12.2024 to this Tribunal for

adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore well

presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was

once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 17.02.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up

nor was any authorized representative of the counsel on his behalf present. The claim statement was not furnished in

any manner by the Petitioner. It reveals the Petitioner, despite of sufficient opportunity choose not to appear or to file

claim statement and documents.

In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which

would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.

In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with

the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government,

as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

5. In the result the reference is answered against the petitioner.

An Award is passed accordingly.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 749.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (a44/2019) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/16/2019- आई आर (बी- II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026

S.O. 749.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2019) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/16/2019- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Date: 02-02-2026

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER

Industrial Dispute No. 44/2019

BETWEEN

Shri R.Elangovan

S/o. E.Radhakrishnan

14A, VSM Garden, West Saidapet,

Chennai-600083.

1^st Party/Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4015

AND

1.The Chief Manager,

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,

Linghi Chetty Street,

Chennai-600 001.

2. The Senior Manager (HR)

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,

Linghi Chetty Street,

Chennai-600 001.

II Party/Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner :

M/s. D.Ravindranathan, Advocates

For the II Party/Respondents 1 & 2 :

M/s. Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12012/16/2019(IR(B-II)

dated 20-05-2019 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

2. The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the demand of Shri R.Elangovan, Sub-Staff of Andhra Bank for reinstatement into service w.e.f

01.11.2018 (Stated to be working since 03.12.2014 to 01.11.2018) with all attendant benefits is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?”

It is the claim of the Petitioner that he was selected and appointed by the Respondent Management as sub-

staff, after having followed the existent instructions and procedures, in the Sriperumbudur Branch (Tiruvallur District)

on 03.12.2014. The petitioner submits that he had worked for more than 240 days in each of the calendar years during

the period from December 2014 to October, 2018. The petitioner further submits that his monthly wages was

deposited in his bank a/c bearing no. 24111000002698 at Sriperumbudur Branch of the Respondent bank. The

petitioner submits that his last drawn salary of Rs.15,082/- being the salary for the month of June 2018 was deposited

in his bank account on 03.07.2018. The petitioner submits that he had put in total service of more than 4 years from

the date of appointment i.e. 03.12.2014, till the date of termination i.e. 31.10.2018. The action of the respondent in

terminating the services of the petitioner during the pendency of conciliation proceedings is arbitrary, vindictive,

illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The respondent bank violated the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, arbitrarily in terminating him from service without complying with the provisions of the Act.

The petitioner submits that it is pertinent to mention that even when he was terminated from service without notice,

the Respondent has issued online advertisement during April, 2017 calling for applications for the post of sub staff

without filling from amongst the existing staff working for years together. The provisions of the bi-partite settlement

with regard to the regularization of temporary staff have also been totally violated in terminating the services of the

petitioner. For the above reasons, the Respondent Bank may be directed to reinstate the Petitioner into service with

back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

The Respondent bank in its counter statement submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed at the said

branch of the bank as a sub-staff. He was engaged for specific purpose for which he was paid with fair wages on

the basis of equal pay for equal work. Therefore, his engagement was casual in nature and it shall not amount to

appointment in the post of sub-staff. Hence, the services provided by the Petitioner was no stretch of imagination

can be considered as regularization. It is submitted that disengagement of Petitioner during pendency of conciliation

is not arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was not appointed as sub-staff,

whereas he was just engaged for completion of specific purpose. The Petitioner was never terminated from service

and thus, no notice was served on the Petitioner and there is no violation of law committed by the Respondent bank

and thus, for the above reasons, the ID raised by the Petitioner is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

Witnesses Examined:

For the First Party Petitioner :

WW1 Shri R.Elangovan

For the 2^nd Party/Management :

Nil

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner‘s side:

4016 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

08.12.2015

Transaction history of the Petitioner with the Respondent

bank bearing a/c. No.241110000002698 for the period from

Dec.2015 to July, 2018.

Ex.W2

01.03.2016

Letter addressed by Branch Manager Sriperumbudur branch

to DGM, Zonal Office of the Respondent Bank.

Ex.W3

18.06.2016

Letter addressed by Branch Manager Sriperumbudur branch

to DGM, Zonal Office of the Respondent Bank.

Ex.W4

17.12.2018

I.D. raised before Assistant Labour Commissioner u/s.2A

of the Act

Ex.W5

14.02.2019

Recording failure of conciliation

Ex.W6

20.05.2019

Copy of order of reference sent by Ministry of Labour

Documents Marked:

On behalf of Respondent/Management : Nil

Heard both the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the records. The Petitioner has filed

proof of affidavit and six documents have been marked as Ex.W1 to W6 on his behalf and the Petitioner was cross

examined by the Respondent. On behalf of the Respondent proof of affidavit was filed by the Chief Manager of

Zonal Office Mr. K.Satyanarayana. No document is filed on behalf of the Respondent bank.

The point that arises for determination is whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service?

If so, to what relief, he is entitled to?

7. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent Bank after

having followed the existent instructions on 03.12.2014 and he has completed four years service without any break.

The monthly wages of the Petitioner was credited into account of the Petitioner in Sriperumbudur branch bearing

No.24111000002698. In this regard, the Petitioner has marked Ex.W1 as transaction history, which clearly

establishes the fact that Petitioner had continuously worked with the Respondent bank for four years i.e., more

than 240 days in a calendar year and wages were drawn. Ex.W2 and Ex.W3 are the letters sent by Branch Manager of

Sriperumbudur branch of the Respondent bank to the DGM., Zonal Office recommending the Petitioner for

confirmation.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the engagement of the Petitioner was

casual in nature and shall not amount to appointment for the post of sub-staff. Merely because the Petitioner has

completed 240 days of service in a year preceding the date of disengagement, the service of the Petitioner is not

liable to be regularized. He further submitted that when there is no order of appointment, the question of termination

of the Petitioner does not arise. Further, in the proof of affidavit, the Respondent stated that the Petitioner had raised

conciliation proceedings during the year 2018 u/s.2A of the Act. Therefore, the present industrial dispute raised by

the Petitioner attracts doctrine of res judicata as the Petitioner has raised similar dispute before this forum through

union and the matter was earlier dismissed by this Tribunal. Therefore, it is second round of litigation. On this

ground itself, the ID is liable to be dismissed and the question of adjudication of this dispute does not arise.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Others in Appeal (Civil) 3595-3612 of 1999 (2006) 4 SCC 1. In

this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3595-3612 of 1999, 3520-3524 of 2002 arising out of SLP

9103-9105 of 2001 dated 10.04.2006 has directed the Union of India, that long and continuous service alone does

not create right to regularization. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right, unless appointment itself is made against

the sanctioned post and it was made through legal and proper process.

10.

The Respondent further contended that no person can be appointed in violation of recruitment norms laid

down. Any appointment is made in violation of recruitment norms, the said appointment becomes void ab-initio and it

does not confer any right to the persons so appointed.

11. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The

Managing Director Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd & Another. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that the date from which the regularization is to be granted is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in

view a number of factors like nature of work, number of posts lying vacant, financial condition of the employer, the

additional financial burden caused, suitability of the workman for the job and the manner and reason for which

initial appointments were made etc. and further held that date of regularization and grant of pay scale is a prerogative

of the employer / screening committee and no parity can be claimed in the matter of regularization in different years.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4017

12.

The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon another judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, The

State of Bihar and Ors Vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the

appointment of the Petitioner was ab initio, void, they cannot be said to be civil servants of the State. On perusal of

the judgement, it appears that some Petitioners produced fake or forged appointment letter. But, this is not the case of

the Petitioner. He never forged the appointment letter. Further, the Respondent failed to refute the documentary

evidence Ex.W1 filed by the Petitioner that the wages amount was paid to the Petitioner for all these four years.

13.

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is the prerogative right of the employer to regularize the services

of employee But, if the employee serves continuously for four years, then he cannot be asked to leave the service

without providing opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the present case, the Petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement into service.

AWARD

In view of the above reasons, the Industrial Dispute raised by Petitioner is allowed. The Respondent is directed to

reinstate the Petitioner on the same pay scale as he was getting from the date of removal. The Petitioner is entitled

for 50% of the back wages, which will be paid within three months and also entitled for regularization in the course

of seniority as per availability of regular post. The reference is answered accordingly.

Record be consigned to the record room.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 750.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (a19/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/08/2017- आई आर (बी- II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026

S.O. 750.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/08/2017- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Date: 23-02-2026

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No.19/2017

BETWEEN

Shri S.Jeyaramalingam,

C/o. Madurai Motor Transport and General

Workers Union,

146, Puttu Thoppu Road, R,M. Complex

Madurai-625 016.

1^st Party/ Petitioner

4018 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Chief Regional Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office,

No.40, 80 Feet Road, Anna Nagar,

Madurai-625 020.

2ⁿParty/Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/ Petitioner

M/s. N.K.Srinivasan, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/ Respondent

M/s.N.G.R.Prasad, Advocates

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12011/08/2017(IR(B-II)

dated 20-03-2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

2. The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank , Regional Office, Madurai in estopping

the services of Shri S.Jeyaramalingam, an Ex-Jewel Appraiser from service w.e.f 06.03.2015 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?”

As per the claim statement, the case of the Petitioner is that he was engaged as Business Correspondent to

the bank as per agreement dated 11.08.2010 and later he was appointed as jewel appraiser from 05.10.2012 for

Sevalpatti Branch. The Petitioner was terminated by the bank without adopting any procedure and he was not

assigned any reason for termination. The Petitioner submits that reported allegation of undervalue of gold jewels

against him had not been established. There is no substantial evidence to prove the allegation was made against the

Petitioner. No show cause notice has been issued and termination of service is against provisions of Article 14, 16 &

21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, the Respondent bank may be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service .

In the counter statement filed on behalf of the Respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner has raised the

present industrial dispute challenging his dis-empanelment as jewel appraiser under Industrial Disputes Act 1947, is

not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine, as jewel appraisers are not

workmen as defined under Section 2(S) of the same Act. That the jewel appraisers are not workmen is amply clear

from the rulings dated 10.03.2006 of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Appeal (civil) 7986 of 2004 in Writ

Appeal No.465 of 2001 in the case of the General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank - vs - Workmen, All India

Overseas Bank Employees Union. In as much as the jewel appraisers are not workmen, the dispute raised by them

against Indian Overseas Bank is not an Industrial Dispute in terms of provision of the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. In fact as per policy Bank never appoints any jewel appraiser. As per guidelines of the Bank, a panel of jewel

appraisers will be prepared based on the applications made by experienced jewel appraisers and among the

empanelled appraisers, the branch can utilize the service of any one of them with the approval of the Regional Office.

Since the Bank has not appointed the petitioner on employment basis, they are free to carry on any business even

while certifying the jewels at the opposite party Bank. The bank has chosen to disengage the petitioner since he has

given certificate to inferior quality jewels and also due to other allegations. It is submitted that there is no employer

and employee relationship between the Bank and the petitioner. The petitioner was empaneled in the Jewel Appraiser

panel and allotted to the Sevalpatti Branch on 05.10.2012. His service as jewel appraiser was dispensed with by

Regional office Madurai based on complaints against him by the customers of the Bank. Regional office of the Bank

conducted re-appraisal of the jewels which were appraised by him and found that an excess of Rs.5.89 lakhs was

financed due to the wrong appraisal of fineness of jevel pledged in 83 loan accounts. It is submitted that the petitioner

has filed W.P.No.(MD). No.7658 of 2015 before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court challenging his

disengagement and the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble court on 30.04.2015. Challenging the order, he

has filed WA. (MD). No.767 of 2015. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. It is only thereafter,

the petitioner has raised the present industrial dispute before the Labour Commissioner. It is submitted that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.03.2006 in Civil Appeal No.7986 of 2004 has clearly stated that there

is no employer and employee relationship between the Bank and jewel appraiser like the petitioner. It is submitted

that the petitioner was engaged by the branch as Business Correspondent through an agreement and later was

empanelled as jewel appraiser by the Sevalpati branch. The petitioner was paid commission as per the agreement. The

averment that the petitioner discharged his duties without any room for complaints is denied as there were complaints

against him by the customers of the Bank. Based on the complaints, the Bank conducted re-appraisals of the jewels

appraised by the petitioner and ascertained that an excess of Rs.5.89 lakh was financed due to his wrong appraisal.

The petitioner was dis-empanelled as jewel appraiser based on the complaints and re-appraisals was done by the

Bank. The petitioner is not an employee of the Bank. The Bank is only using his technical service as appraiser of

jewels for the purpose of granting jewel loans. His remuneration is purely based on the commission which is paid by

the customers. Further the petitioner is free to carry out any job after the assessment is over. In fact petitioner is also

running a chit fund business even while he was engaged as Jewel Appraiser/Business Correspondent. It is submitted

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4019

that the petitioner is not an employee of the Bank. His services were utilized by the Bank for appraisal of jewels and

the same is spelt out in the letter dated 05.10.2012. Since it was found that the petitioner had wrongly appraised the

jewels, he was merely disengaged by the Bank. It is submitted that there are no merits in the Claim Petition filed by

the petitioner and the same may be rejected.

Witnesses Examined:

For the First Party Petitioner :

WW1 Shri S.Jeyaramalingam

For the 2^nd Party/Management :

MW1 Shri D.Sadasivan,Manager, Law

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner‘s side:

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

11.08.2010

Copy of agreement with the bank

Ex.W2

27.09.2012

Copy of letter issued by bank

Ex.W3

05.10.2012

Copy of appointment order for jewel appraiser

Ex.W4

20.03.2017

Copy of order of reference made by Ministry of Labour

Ex.W5

03.09.2015

Copy of 2A petition filed by the Petitioner

Ex.W6

06.11.2015

Reply filed by the Respondent

Ex.W7

28.01.2016

Reply filed by the Petitioner

Ex.W8

10.03.2016

Additional written statement filed by Respondent

Ex.W9

09.03.2015

Copy of Petitioner notice for reinstatment

Documents Marked:

On behalf of Respondent/Management :

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

10.03.2006

Copy of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Appeal No.7986 of 2004

Ex.M2

30.04.2015

Order in W.P (MD) No 7658 of 2015

Ex.M3

16.07.2015

Order in W.P (MD) No 767 of 2015

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the either side and perused the records. The point that

arises for my determination is whether the Jewel Appraiser in the Respondent Bank is workman u/s.2(S) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

As per definition of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, workman is a person employed to do

manual, technical, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work subject to wage limit. The

question is what is the nature of work of the Jewel Appraiser. It is admitted by the Petitioner that his main work is to

examine the purity of gold and take commission from the person who pledge the jewel in the Respondent bank and

take the loan amount. The Respondent also stated that the bank did not pay remuneration to the Petitioner and he

gets commission from the person who pledge the jewel in the bank. Thus, this fact is established that the Petitioner

is taking commission per transaction from the customer, who pledge the jewel in the bank and the Petitioner is not

under the control of the bank, he is free to work in multiple banks and there is no relationship of employer and

employee with the Respondent bank and the Petitioner. Further, as relied on by the Respondent, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court the case of the General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Workmen reported in (2006) 3 SCC

729 has categorically held that Jewel Appraisers are not workmen under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, since

the Petitioner/Jewel Appraiser is not a workman, he is not entitled to get any relief under the Act. The reference is

answered accordingly.

AWARD

In light of the above discussion, as the Petitioner is not a workman and no employer-employee relationship exists

between the Respondent /bank and the Petitioner, he is not entitled to get any relief and thus, the industrial dispute is

dismissed accordingly.

Record be consigned to the record room.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

Date : 23.02.2026

Place: Chennai

4020 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 751.— 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 fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (a13/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/94/2016- आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026

S.O. 751.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2017) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Chennai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/94/2016- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Date: 02-02-2026

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No.13/2017

BETWEEN

Shri S.Peter,

S/o. Sebastian,

5/462, Kotharavayal,

Gudalur Dist

Nilgiris-643 212..

1^st Party/ Petitioner

AND

The Manager,

UCO Bank, Via Ooty,

Gudalur, Nilgiris.

2ⁿParty/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/ Petitioner

M/s. K.Lavan, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/ Respondent

M/s. Srinath Sridevan, Advocates

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment vide its Order No.L-12012/94/2016(IR(B-II)

dated 06-03-2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

2. The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank, Gudalur Branch in estopping the services of

Shri Peter, an ex-sub-staff from service w.e.f. 31.03.2009 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled to?”

The Petitioner claimed that he was employed as sub-staff by the 2^nd Party/Respondent bank continuously

from 01-11-2002 till 31-03-2009 and was paid Rs.150/- per day through voucher and the same can be verified from

the daily wages voucher, daily voucher note, general ledger and Day book maintained by the Respondent bank. It is

submitted that Petitioner belongs to converted schedule caste Christian and originally his name was Mr.S.Peter

Burnad and after Baptism his name was changed to S.Peter. It is submitted that the Respondent Bank orally refused

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4021

employment to the Petitioner on 31-03-2009 without any notice or enquiry. As such the refusal of employment to the

Petitioner from 31-03-2009 is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act and the principles of Natural Justice.

Since the Petitioner has worked as sub staff for more than 6 years with continuity of service, the 2^nd

Party/Respondent should have regularized his service. Though the Petitioner requested the Respondent Bank on

number of occasions, to reinstate him in service, there was no response from the 2 Party Respondent bank.

Therefore, the Petitioner filed a petition in R.C.No.7/22/2015, U/S 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before

the Deputy Principal Labour Commissioner Central. Madurai to declare the refusal of employment from 31-03-2009

as illegal and direct the 2^nd Party/Respondent to provide the Petitioner employment with back wages and continuity

of service. But the conciliation ended in failure and subsequently, the Ministry has sent the reference for adjudication.

The refusal of employment to the Petitioner from 31-03-2009 by the 2 Party Respondent without any notice and

enquiry is not valid in law and held to be illegal as the Petitioner had worked as sub-staff continuously for more than

6 years. The refusal of employment to the 1^st Party/Petitioner by the is against the provisions of Section 25(b) of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. For these reasons, it is prayed that Respondent Bank may be directed to reinstate him

into service with back wages and other attendant benefits.

3. It is submitted that the Petitioner was only engaged as a Coolie by the Bank and he was paid with a sum of Rs.

150/- as a Coolie amount. It is significant to point out that the Petitioner's service was terminated every day, by

getting voucher for the payment of the said coolie amount of Rs. 150/-. It is submitted that the Bank is a Nationalized

Bank. The Petitioner got himself engaged as a coolie on a daily basis depending upon the requirement. The Petitioner

was not recruited as a permanent employee in accordance with the procedure enumerated in the Bank's recruitment

system. In the event of any permanent employment in the nationalised bank, proper recruitment system alone will be

followed for the purpose of recruiting any employee. After such proper recruitment, a service register is to be

maintained by the Bank for all the permanent employees by following the above said procedure. The Petitioner was

not recruited by the Bank as employee. It is further submitted that the Bank is not maintaining any seniority list at

District level and the seniority list maintained by the Bank is at the zonal level and includes only permanent

employees. There was no attendance register maintained for the petitioner. The bank maintains attendance register

only for its permanent employees. It is important to note that there is no compulsory requirement for the service of

the Petitioner. The Petitioner also was not duty bound to report regularly for work. The Petitioner had voluntarily

entered in to the coolie work and his qualification was not required by the Bank. It is submitted that as defined under

Sec. 2 (K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Petitioner's claim cannot hold good. It is submitted that there is no

monthly salary paid to the Petitioner by the Bank. It is submitted that the Petitioner was not a permanent employee of

the Bank and there was no termination of service by the Bank as alleged by the Petitioner in his statement. Actually, it

is the other way that the Petitioner voluntarily did not turn for the coolie work from 31-03-2009. It is submitted that

the Petitioner voluntarily stopped his coolie work from 31-03-2009. After six years now the Petitioner has raised this

present Industrial Dispute which nothing but a vexatious one. The allegation that the Bank orally informed the

Petitioner that there is an order from the higher ups stating that the Petitioner need not come for job from 31-03-2009

is incorrect, false and are not admitted. It is submitted that the refusal of employment to the Petitioner is against Sec.

25(b) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is incorrect. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as

claimed.

Witnesses Examined:

For the First Party Petitioner :

WW1 Shri S.Peter

For the 2^nd Party/Management :

MW1 Shri Kartik Kumar Sah,

Branch Manager

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner‘s side:

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

01.02.2008

Certificate issued by Bethel Church to the Petitioner

Ex.W2

11.09.2008

Letter given by Respondent to sub-treasury officer, Gudalur

Ex.W3

16.12.2008

Conduct certificate given by Respondent bank to the

Petitioner

Ex.W4

03.10.2013

Letter sent by Petitioner to Public Information Officer of

respondent bank

Ex.W5

01.06.2009

Representation of the Petitioner to the Manager of 2^nd

Party/Management

4022 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W6

22.05.2009

Reply received from Information Officer

Ex.W7

25.09.2015

Petition filed by Petitioner u/s.2A in R.C. No.7/22/2015

Ex.W8

09.08.2016

Counter statement filed by Respondent Bank

Ex.W9

06.03.2017

Order of conciliation officer, Chennai.

Ex.W1

Identity card issued by Respondent to the Petitioner

Ex.W1

16.12.2016

Birth certificate of the Petitioner

Ex.W1

Aadhaar card of the Petitioner

Documents Marked:

On behalf of Respondent/Management :

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

02.03.2016

Payment voucher

Ex.M2

30.07.2006

Payment voucher

Ex.M3

05.04.2006

Payment voucher

Ex.M4

Copy of proforma invoice signed by Petitioner

Heard both the parties and perused the records. The point that arises for determination is whether the

Petitioner is entitled for any relief?

The Petitioner has adduced oral evidence as WW1 and he was cross examined by the Respondent and

documents filed on behalf of the Petitioner were marked as Ex.W1 to W12. Ex.W1 is the certificate issued to the

Petitioner by the Bethel Church mentioning his name as S.Peter. Ex.W2 is the copy of letter given by Respondent

bank to Sub-Treasury Officer, Gudalur requesting to issue stamps worth of Rs.5,000/- through the Petitioner.

Ex.W3 is copy of certificate issued by Branch Manager of the Respondent Bank dated 16.12.2008 certifying that

Petitioner had worked as sub-staff of Gudalur branch from 01.11.2002 purely on temporary basis on daily wage

basis, which was issued to apply for an employment in abroad. Ex.W4 is copy of letter of the Petitioner addressed to

Public Information Officer of the Respondent bank. Ex.W5 is the copy of representation made by the Petitioner to the

General Manager of the Respondent bank regarding his removal from service. Ex.W6 is reply given by Public

Information Officer to the Petitioner. Ex.W7 is 2A petition filed by the Petitioner. Ex.W8 is the reply filed by

Respondent before conciliation officer. Ex.W9 is the reference made by Ministry of Labour. Ex.W10 is the copy of

Identity Card issued by Respondent Bank to the Petitioner as sub-staff. On behalf of the Respondent Bank proof of

affidavit is filed by Mr.Kartik Kumar Sah, Branch Manager and adduced oral evidence as MW1 and four documents

were marked as Ex.M1 to Ex.M4. Ex.M1 to M3 are copies of payment vouchers issued to Petitioner. Ex.M4 is the

copy of document showing that he Petitioner is gainfully employed in Sree Saradhambal Automobile Ltd.

Coimbatore.

The first question that arises to decide the reference is whether the Petitioner has worked for more than 240

days continuously as workman with the Respondent/bank. As per definition of continuous service provided under

section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if a workman has worked continuously for at least 240 days

during the 12 calendar months preceding relating to the date e.g. terminated date from the work. The Petitioner in

the claim statement as well as oral evidence stated that he was working as a daily wager and he was paid with daily

rate wages. He further stated that no service book was maintained for his job. On perusal of Ex.W3, which is a

certificate issued by the Branch Manager of the Respondent bank to the Petitioner stating that Mr.Peter is working as

sub-staff of the Gudalur branch since 01.11.2002 purely on temporary basis and he has been paid daily wages. This

certificate itself suggests that Petitioner had worked as daily wager and received wages for performance of his work

every day. This certificate was issued for his good character also. Ex.W4 is copy of letter sent by Petitioner seeking

information under RTI Act from the Respondent bank. It is not a proof of document for his service. Ex.W5 is copy

of representation made by Petitioner to General Manager of Respondent bank against termination. Ex.W6 is copy of

reply given by Respondent Bank to the Petitioner under RTI Act. Ex.W7 & W8 are relating to labour dispute raised

by Petitioner and counter filed by Respondent u/s.2A of the Act. Ex.W10 is copy of identity card issued by

Respondent bank. On this document, designation of the employee is mentioned as sub-staff. On behalf of

Respondent, four documents Ex.M1 to M4 were marked. Ex.M1 to Ex.M3 are copy of payment vouchers. Ex.M4 is

copy of proforma invoice signed by the Petitioner.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4023

The Petitioner in the claim statement stated that he was employed by the Respondent bank continuously

from 01.11.2002 to 31.03.2009 and was paid Rs.150/- per day through vouchers. This statement itself suggests that

Petitioner was working on daily wage basis. But, the Petitioner failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support

of his claim namely attendance register, wage register etc. The Respondent bank stated that no such documents are

available with the respondent because the Petitioner was working as coolie on daily wage basis. Although under the

law, nature of duties determine whether the person is a workman or not. It is not important that in what manner he

has been provided remuneration/wage, it may be daily, monthly or on contractual basis etc. Based on the above

discussion, it may be concluded that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days continuously on the basis of

daily wage.

The second issue that arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into

service?

The fact is established that Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days on daily wage basis. Therefore,

he was entitled to get benefit under the provisions of section 25F of the Act, because the Respondent although stated

that Petitioner himself stopped from coming to work and therefore, there was no need to give one month notice or

one month pay in lieu of notice. But, the Petitioner in his affidavit clearly stated that he was stopped by oral order of

the Respondent not to attend the work. This statement may be considered as reliable in absence of any such person‘s

evidence, who was employed in the bank branch at the time of stoppage of the Petitioner from service.

10.

The compensation may be on the following grounds:-

Worked as daily wager?

In the present case, Petitioner worked as daily wager.

Long delay in raising the dispute?

This fact is established that Petitioner has committed delay in raising the dispute. As per his statement, he worked

up to 31.03.2009, but raised the industrial dispute in the year 2015 before the labour authorities.

11.

As per discussion above, it is appropriate to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay one month salary to the

Petitioner and 15 days average wages to the every completed year of continuous service along with Rs.1,00,000/- in

cash as lump sum compensation within a period of three months.

AWARD

The reference is allowed on the following terms:

The Respondent is directed to pay the Petitioner one month salary within a period of three months;

The Respondent bank is directed to pay 15 days average wages for every completed year of continuous

service within a period of three months; &

The Respondent bank is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as lump sum compensation within a period of three

months.

12.

In case, the above directions are not complied within the stipulated period, the Petitioner will be entitled to

get interest @ 6% per annum from 31.03.2009 till the date of payment. Ordered accordingly.

Record be consigned to the record room.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

Date : 02-02-2026

Place: CHENNAI

नई ददल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 752.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

बैंक ऑफ बड़़ौदा ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; psUubZ ds iapkV (5,6,7,8,&9//2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-39025/01/2026- आई आर (बी- II)-38]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

4024 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 23rd April, 2026

S.O. 752.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 5,6,7,8,&9//2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Chennai 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)-38]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Date: 26-02-2026

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE. Nos.5, 6 ,7,8 & 9/2020

S.No. I.D.No.

1^st Party/Petitioner

2^nd Party/ Management

5/2020

Shri N.Karthikeyan

S/o. L.Nagarajan,

37/16-D,Chenniyampalayampudhur,

Kanjikovil Post,

Perunthurai Taluk

Erode-638 116.

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,

82, Bank Road, 3^rd floor,

Coimbatore-641 018.

2. The General Manager,

Zonal Office, Mylapore,

Chennai-600004

6/2020

Smt. D.Poovathal,

W/o. late Duraisamy,

198, Puliampatti Road,

Periyar Nagar,

Nambiyur, Erode-638 458.

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,

82, Bank Road, 3^rd floor,

Coimbatore-641 018.

2. The General Manager,

Zonal Office, Mylapore,

Chennai-600004

7/2020

Shri C.Moorthi,

S/o.Chinnan,

#2/77, Vavikkadai Vel Nagar,

Tiruvachi,Pichadampalayam,

Perundurai,

Erode-638 052..

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,

82, Bank Road, 3^rd floor,

Coimbatore-641 018.

2. The General Manager,

Zonal Office, Mylapore,

Chennai-600004

8/2020

Smt. R.Lakshmi,

W/o. late R.Ravikumar,

36, Lakshmipuram,

Rayapalayampudur,

Chitode, Erode-638 116.

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,

82, Bank Road, 3^rd floor,

Coimbatore-641 018.

2. The General Manager,

Zonal Office, Mylapore,

Chennai-600004

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4025

9/2020

Shri M.Ramakrishnan

S/ o. Marimuthu,

#51, Dr.Ambedkar Nagar,

Chithode Post,

Erode-638 102..

1. The Deputy General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Regional Office,

82, Bank Road, 3^rd floor,

Coimbatore-641 018.

2. The General Manager,

Zonal Office, Mylapore,

Chennai-600004

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/ Petitioner

M/s.S.P.Srinivasan, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/ Respondents

M/s. T.S.Gopalan, Advocates

The facts in all these five Industrial Disputes are similar and the legal issues raised by the Petitioners are same and

the cases arise against the same Respondent for the same relief. Therefore, a common order is being passed in all

these ID cases. I take up the I.D. No.5/2020 as lead case, filed by the Petitioner for disposal of these five appeals and

finding being rendered in this order will equally apply to all the other appeals filed by the other Petitioners.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, O.o. Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central), Chennai vide its separate orders No.M.7/5/2019-A1, M.7/6/2019-A1, M.7/ 8/2019-A1, M.7/9/2019-A1,

M.7/7/2019-A1 all dated 19-12-2019 referred the following Industrial Disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

2. The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri

N.Karthikeyan / Smt.Poovathal / C.Moorthi / R.Lakshmi / M.Ramakrishnan, after being engaged for a

considerable period, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman/workwoman are entitled

to?”

Brief facts are the case are as under:-

ID No. 5/2020 : Shri N.Karthikeyan:

It is the claim of the Petitioner that he joined the service of the 1 Respondent on 13.12.2012 as Sub-Staff at the newly

opened Chennimalai Branch. The petitioner discharged the duties of sub staff and also performed the duty of

cleaning, maintenance, and the work of sub-staff like stitching voucher, preparation of loan documents, attending cash

remittance, etc. The Petitioner worked in the Chennimalai Branch from 13.12.2012 to October 18.12.2014. The

Petitioner was also issued bonus certificate for the year 2013 to 2014. He was the only sub-staff to have worked from

the date of opening of the branch at Chennimalai, Perunthurai Taluk till 18.12.2014. The petitioner has completed

240 days in a year and 480 days in two years. The post in which he worked as a permanent post of Sub-Staff. All of a

sudden, without any rhyme or reason he was orally terminated on 18.12.2014 and he was asked not to report for duty

from 19.12.2014. Further, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.39804 of 2015, and the Hon‘ble Court vide its order

dated 20.07.2017, granted the petitioners liberty to approach the competent authorities for relief. In fact, the persons

who were similarly placed like that of petitioner were confirmed in service by way of settlement and there were also

instances of individuals been regularized and absorbed in service even after 2008 settlement. Hence, settlement

entered into on 2008 alone was not the last date of regularization. But, temporary/casual employees were regularized

even after 2008.

ID No. 6/2020 : Smt.D.Poovathal:

It is the claim of the Petitioner that she joined the service of the 1 Respondent during November, 1996 as Sweeper

cum Sub-Staff at the Nambiyur Branch. The petitioner discharged the duties of sub staff and also performed the duty

of cleaning, maintenance, and the work of sub-staff like stitching voucher, preparation of loan documents etc. The

Petitioner was transferred to Gobichettipalayam branch in the 2011 and in the year 2012, she was again transferred

to Nambiyur branch. The petitioner has completed 240 days in a year and worked continuously for more than 9

years. The post in which she worked as a permanent post of Sub-Staff. All of a sudden, without any rhyme or reason

she was orally terminated on 18.12.2014 and she was asked not to report for duty from 19.12.2014. Further, the

Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.39279 of 2015, and the Hon‘ble Court vide its order dated 20.07.2017, granted the

petitioners liberty to approach the competent authorities for relief. In fact, the persons who were similarly placed like

that of petitioner were confirmed in service by way of settlement and there were also instances of individuals been

regularized and absorbed in service even after 2008 settlement. Hence, settlement entered into on 2008 alone was not

the last date of regularization. But, temporary/casual employees were regularized even after 2008.

4026 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ID No. 7/2020 : Shri C.Moorthi:

It is the claim of the Petitioner that he joined the service of the 1 Respondent on 03.08.2002 as Sub-Staff at

Perundurai Branch. The petitioner discharged the duties of sub staff and also performed the duty of cleaning,

maintenance, and the work of sub-staff like stitching voucher, preparation of loan documents, attending cash

remittance, etc. On his transfer, the Petitioner worked in the Erode Branch from 01.04.2009 to 18.12.2014. The

Petitioner was also issued bonus certificate for the year 2013 to 2014. The petitioner has completed 240 days in a

year and 480 days in two years. The post in which he worked as a permanent post of Sub-Staff. All of a sudden,

without any rhyme or reason he was orally terminated on 18.12.2014 and he was asked not to report for duty from

19.12.2014. Further, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38443 of 2015, and the Hon‘ble Court vide its order dated

20.07.2017, granted the petitioners liberty to approach the competent authorities for relief. In fact, the persons who

were similarly placed like that of petitioner were confirmed in service by way of settlement and there were also

instances of individuals been regularized and absorbed in service even after 2008 settlement. Hence, settlement

entered into on 2008 alone was not the last date of regularization. But, temporary/casual employees were regularized

even after 2008.

ID No. 8/2020 : Smt. R.Lakshmi:

It is the claim of the Petitioner that she joined the service of the 1 Respondent/Bank on 17.11.2007 as Sweeper

cum Sub-Staff. The petitioner discharged the duties of sub staff and also performed the duty of cleaning, maintenance,

and the work of sub-staff like stitching voucher, preparation of loan documents etc. The petitioner has completed

240 days in a year and worked continuously for more than 9 years. The post in which she worked as a permanent post

of Sub-Staff. All of a sudden, without any rhyme or reason she was orally terminated on 18.12.2014 and she was

asked not to report for duty from 19.12.2014. Further, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38443 of 2015, and the

Hon‘ble Court vide its order dated 20.07.2017, granted the petitioners liberty to approach the competent authorities

for relief. In fact, the persons who were similarly placed like that of petitioner were confirmed in service by way of

settlement and there were also instances of individuals been regularized and absorbed in service even after 2008

settlement. Hence, settlement entered into on 2008 alone was not the last date of regularization. But, temporary/casual

employees were regularized even after 2008.

ID No. 9/2020 : Shri M.Ramakrishnan:

It is the claim of the Petitioner that he joined the service of the 1 Respondent on 28.02.1994 as peon at Erode Branch

upto 02.06.1994. The petitioner discharged the duties of sub staff and also performed the duty of cleaning,

maintenance, and the work of sub-staff like stitching voucher, preparation of loan documents, attending cash

remittance, etc. On his transfer, the Thiondal Branch Petitioner worked from 27.05.1995 to 14.12.1996. Thereafter, he

worked in Perundurai Branch from 16.12.1996 to 10.10.1999. Again he worked from 08.07.2010 to 18.12.2014 in

Erode Branch as sub-staff. The Petitioner was also issued bonus certificate for the year 2013 to 2014. The petitioner

has completed 240 days in a year and 480 days in two years. The post in which he worked as a permanent post of

Sub-Staff. All of a sudden, without any rhyme or reason he was orally terminated on 18.12.2014 and he was asked

not to report for duty from 19.12.2014. Further, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.38444 of 2015, and the Hon‘ble

Court vide its order dated 20.07.2017, granted the petitioners liberty to approach the competent authorities for relief.

In fact, the persons who were similarly placed like that of petitioner were confirmed in service by way of settlement

and there were also instances of individuals been regularized and absorbed in service even after 2008 settlement.

Hence, settlement entered into on 2008 alone was not the last date of regularization. But, temporary/casual employees

were regularized even after 2008.

In the common counter statement, it is submitted that earlier the petitioners had raised an Industrial Dispute

in ID No.41, 42,43,44 & 45 of 2018 and the same were withdrawn being not maintainable on the ground that

Petitioners in the individual capacity cannot be a party to the dispute u/s.2(k) of the Act. Therefore, on the issue of

limitation, at the first instance, the maintainability of this ID is taken up. The order of reference in the present case

would not give any right to the Petitioner to seek an adjudication on merits. Therefore, the Respondent challenges

order of reference for adjudication on the ground that cessation of engagement was barred by limitation. In the event

of preliminary objection being held against the respondent, it reserves the right to file addition counter affidavit on

merits of the case.

Witnesses Examined:

For the First Party Petitioner :

WW1 Petitioner concerned

For the 2^nd Party/Management :

Nil

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner‘s side:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4027

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

2012 to 2014

Status of bonus paid to Petitioner for 2012-13 to 2013-14

Ex.W2

2012-13

2013-14

Wages paid as sundry charges by bank account in favour of

Petitioner during April, 2013 to March, 2014.

Ex.W3

28.03.2018

Certificate issued by Conciliation Officer

Ex.W4

13.08.2019

Petition filed by Petitioner before RLC Madurai

Ex.W5

03.09.2019

Memo filed by Petitioner before CGIT

Ex.W6

23.09.2019

CGIT Award in ID 42/2018

Ex.W7

01.11.2019

e-mail communication received from RLC office

Ex.W8

12.11.2019

Counter filed by Respondent before RLC Madurai

Ex.W9

29.11.2019

Failure report submitted by RLC Madurai

Ex.W10

19.12.2019

Reference issued by Deputy CLC, Chennai

Documents Marked:

On behalf of Respondent/Management : Nil

Heard both the parties and perused the records. The points that arise for determination are -

(i) Whether the action of the respondent /bank in terminating the services of the Petitioners after being engaged for a

considerable period is legally justified?

ii) Whether the claim petitions filed by the Petitioners are maintainable or not?

(iii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for any relief?

The Petitioner has adduced oral evidence as WW1 and he was cross examined by the Respondent and

documents filed on behalf of the Petitioner were marked as Ex.W1 to W10. Ex.W1 is the copy of voucher showing

bonus paid to the Petitioner for 2012-13 and 2013-14. Ex.W2 is copy of ledger report of the respondent bank

account showing sundry charges paid during April, 2013 to March, 2014 for cleaning.

First of all, it is worth to mention here that as per facts of the claim petitions and evidences submitted by the

Petitioners and reply filed by the Respondent/bank, the fact is established that the Petitioners had worked with the

Respondent/bank branches for more than 240 days continuously in one year and served from 7 to 14 years, except

Mr. N.Karthikeyan in ID No.5/2020, who has completed two years service. All the Petitioners in their oral evidence

in Chief and cross examination established the fact that they had worked continuously for more than 240 days.

The relevant oral evidence in Chief/ cross examination of the Petitioner runs as under:-

Shri N.Karthikeyan : ID No.5/2020 in his proof of affidavit/cross-examination stated as under:-

“I joined the services of the 1^st Respondent on 13.12.2012 as sub-staff at newly opened Chennimalai branch and

worked there upto 18.12.2014 and his name has been recorded against sub-staff category during zonal audit in the

year 2013-14.”

Smt.D.Poovathal : ID No.6/2020 in her proof of affidavit stated as under:-

“I joined the service of Respondent/bank branch at Nambiyur as sweeper cum sub-staff during November, 1996 till

18.12.2014.”.

Shri C.Moorthi : ID No.7/2020 in his proof of affidavit stated as under:-

“I joined the service of the Respondent /bank branch at Perundurai on 03.08.2002 and worked till 18.12.2014 as

sub-staff.”

Smt.R.Lakshmi : ID No.8/2020 in her proof of affidavit/cross examination stated as under:-

―I joined the service of the Respondent /bank branch at Suriyampalayam on 17.11.2007 and worked continuously till

18.12.2014 as sub-staff.”

Shri M.Ramakrishnan: ID No.9/2020 in his proof of affidavit stated as under:-

4028 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

―I joined the service of the Respondent /bank branch at Erode on 28.02.1994 to 02.06.1994 as Peon and he was

again offered job from 27.05.1995 to 14.12.1996 in Thindal Branch and worked from 16.12.1996 to 10.10.1999 in

Perundurai branch and also from 08.07.2010 till 18.12.2014 in Erode branch as sub-staff.”

In reply, the Respondent/Bank argued on the point that individual claim petitions filed by the Petitioners

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not maintainable. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Respondent relied on a case law in support of his contention in (1957) I LLJ 27, and it was held that the dispute

between the employer and single employee cannot be per se be an industrial dispute, but it may become the one if it is

taken up by number of workmen. This judgement was delivered in the year 1957.

Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was inserted in the year 1965 and came into force w.e.f.

01.12.1965. On perusal of the inserted section, following ingredients appear to exist:-

An individual workman if his service is discharged, dismissed or retrenched or otherwise terminated may

raise an industrial dispute.

ii)

An individual workman may raise industrial dispute regarding any dispute or difference between that

workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination.

iii)

In the newly inserted section, the individual employee is also entitled to raise industrial dispute. Therefore,

it cannot be said that present Petitioners are not entitled to raise industrial dispute in their personal capacity.

10.

Now, I have to decide what relief the Petitioners are entitled to?

As per provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when the workman who has completed

continuous service not less than 240 days, the workman has to be given one month 's notice in writing indicating the

reasons for retrenchment, the wages for the period of the notice and he has to be paid retrenchment, compensation.

The Petitioners have worked with the Respondent/Bank for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year, if

yes, the protection u/s.25F of the Act is available to the workmen.

11.

Section 25F of the Act provides the following conditions before retrenchment of workmen:-

One month‘s notice (wages in lieu of notice)

Retrenchment compensation is paid (15 days wages of every completed year of service); &

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government.

12.

None of these conditions were followed by the Respondent Bank. Resultantly, the retrenchment becomes

illegal. Since, the Respondent /Bank has violated the provisions of section 25F of the Act, the workman is entitled

for the following or more relief:-

Reinstatement with back wages;

Reinstatement without back wages; &

Lump sum compensation instead of compensation.

13.

All the Petitioners in the above disputes have worked with the Respondent/Bank for more than five years

except one Mr. N.Karthikeyan in ID No.5/2020, who worked for two years. As per provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, the workmen who has completed 240 days, is entitled for protection u/s.25F of the Act and the

retrenchment was in violation of the provisions of the Act, the termination becomes illegal and resultantly, the

Petitioners are entitled for reinstatement in service.

14.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that compensation is the appropriate

relief which may be awarded in favour of the Petitioners. He relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Mr.Ranbir Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another (2023) 17 SCC 196, whereby the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Respondent cannot be directed to carry out mass absorption of eleven thousand

workers on flawed premises without following recruitment process, consistent with the principles of equality of

opportunity governed by Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. The Hon‘ble Court by exercising jurisdiction under

Article 142 of the Constitution directed to fresh verification of claims of workmen and to pay compensation in lieu of

reinstatement. He submits that the facts involved in the present case are identical to that of the case law cited above.

It is also worth to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had invoked extraordinary power under Article 142

of the Constitution of India.

15.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent relied on another judgement delivered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Another

(2009) 15 SCC 327. In that case, the Appellant was engaged by Respondent No.1 as a daily wager on 01.09.1995

and he was paid consolidated monthly wages of Rs.1,498/-. He worked with the Respondent upto 18.07.1996. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered the finding in para 13 of the order, which runs as under:-

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4029

“13. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that as the appellant had worked only for a short period, the

interest of justice will be subserved if the High Court's judgment is modified by directing payment of a sum of Rs

50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) by way of damages to the appellant by the respondent. Such payment should be

made within eight weeks from this date, failing which the same will h carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum."

16.

In the above cited case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the workmen had worked only for a

short period, therefore, interest of justice will be sub-served, if payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- by way of

damages to the Appellant by the Respondent is made.

17. In the present case in hand, except one Petitioner Shri N.Karthikeyan in ID No.5/2020, remaining four

Petitioners had worked more than five years continuously with the Respondent /bank. But, considering equal

protection in the eye of law to all the five Petitioners, it is appropriate to pass an order of reinstatement into service

of the Respondent/bank.

18.

Now, I have to consider as to whether Petitioners are entitled for back wages? It is a settled law that back

wages are not applied automatically upon setting aside termination. It depends upon surrounding facts and

circumstances which may be described as under:-

Length of service

ii)

Nature of conduct: &

iii)

Gainful employment

It is the primary duty to ascertain whether the Petitioners were gainfully employed after termination. But, there is

material on record to show/prove that Petitioners were gainfully employed after termination. Since the Respondent /

Bank acted arbitrarily by not giving any notice before retrenchment of workmen and failed to comply with the

provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the present case, it is appropriate to award 50% of

back wages to workmen/workwoman in the ID Nos.6 to 9/2020 and 25% of back wages to Mr.N.Karthikeyan in ID

No. 5/2020 along with order of reinstatement into service of Respondent/bank.

AWARD

19. The claim petition filed by the Petitioners are allowed. The Petitioners are entitled to the following relief:-

Reinstatement of Petitioners into service within two months from the date of receipt of this Award;

ii)

To grant 50% back wages to workmen in ID Nos.6 to 9/2020 and 25% of back wages to Shri N.Karthikeyan

in ID No.5/2020.

iii)

To pay back wages to the Petitioners from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.

The references are answered accordingly.

Record be consigned to the record room.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

Date: 26-02-2026

Place: Chennai

नई ददल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 753.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

bafM;u vksojlht cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ-1, ds iapkV 32/2023) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/20/2023- आई आर (बी- II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2026

S.O. 753.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2023) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Mumbai

-1 as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/20/2023- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

4030 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 32 of 2023

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

Indian Overseas Bank

V/s.

United Forum of We Bankers

Appearances:

For the first party Management

: Mr. S.V. Alva (Adv.)

For the second party workmen

: Absent

Mumbai, dated the 05^th day of February, 2026.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-12011/20/2023-IR(B-

II) dated 04/05/2023 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section (1) read with 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 demand raised by United Forum of We Banker vide letter dated 18.12.2021 against to the

management of Indian Overseas bank in respect of Shri Akshay Bharat Kawade in (a) issuing penalty of

“censure” without holding enquiry (b) causing workman loss of pay from 17.06.2020 to 10.07.2020 (c) not

giving transfer from Ranjangaon to the nearest place from his home town is legal, proper and justifies? If

yes, what reliefs are the Shri Akshay Bharat Kawade / union are entitled to and what other directions, if any,

are necessary in this matter ?”

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; 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.”

Mr. S.V. Alva, Learned Counsel for the Management, appeared and he prayed that the matter be dismissed for want

of prosecution.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : मई 2, 2026/वैिाख 2, 1948

4031

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 ददल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2026

का.आ. 754.— fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

मेससड इम्ृेजस कागो करे ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; eqEcbZ-1, ds iapkV (40/2007) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-31012/2/2006- आई आर (बी-II)]

सलोनी, उृ जनदेिक

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2026

S.O. 754.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.40/2007) 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 Impex Kargo Kare

and their workmen.

[No. L-31012/2/2006- IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 40 of 2007

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

M/s Impex Kargo Kare

V/s.

Shri Divakar Y. Solgaonkar

Appearances:

For the first party Management

: Absent

For the second party workmen

: Absent

Mumbai, dated the 05^th day of February, 2026.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-31012/2/2006-IR(B-II)

dated 17/08/2007 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of section (1) read with 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 of M/s Impex Kargo Kare, Clearing & Forwarding Agents Mumbai

by terminating the services of Shri Divakar Y. Solgaonkar w.e.f. 04.04.2006 is justified? If not, what relief

the workman, is entitled to?”

In view of the above said facts the claimant/workman has not field 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:

4032 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 2, 2026/VAISAKHA 12, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the