This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

click here for IIIF manifest

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-19082026-275493

CG-DL-W-19082026-275493

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 25] नई दिल्ली, जून 28—जुलाई 4, 2026, शनिवार/ आषाढ 7—आषाढ 13, 1948

No. 25] NEW DELHI, JUNE 28— JULY 4, 2026, SATURDAY/ ASHADHA 7–– ASHADHA 13, 1948

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1328.— राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 (1981 का 61) की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1) के खंड (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, के न्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री राके श कश्यप (जन्मतिथि:

02.01.1969), सीजीएम, के नरा बैंक को राष्ट्रीय कृ षि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक के उप प्रबंध निदेशक के रुप में, इस पद का कार्यभार ग्रहण करने से लेकर उनकी अधिवषिता की आयु तक, अर्थात् दिनांक 31.01.2029 तक या अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, नियुक्त करती है।

[फा. सं. 7/3/2025-एसी]

रत्नाकर झा, अवर सचिव

4531 GI/2026

(6637)6638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 29th June, 2026

S.O. 1328.— In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (3) of section 6 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rakesh Kashyap (DoB: 02.01.1969), CGM, Canara Bank as Deputy Managing Director, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development with effect from the taking over of charge of the post till his superannuation i.e. 31.01.2029 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 7/3/2025-AC]

RATNAKAR JHA, Under Secy.

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1329.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (ं1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतत्र, संबद्ध नियोजको और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट (ं29/2022) प्रकाशित करती है।

[ सं. एल-39025/01/2026- आई आर (बी-II)-61]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2026

S.O. 1329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2022) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen.

[No. L-39025/01/2026- IR(B-II)-61]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 29/2022

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 26-05-2026

Sh.M. Kumaravelu, S/o Murugaiyan, Perumpuliyur, Thillai Sthalam, Thiruviyaru, Thanjavur – 613 203 : 1st Party/Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6639 AND

The Chief General Manager, Union Bank of India, Human Resources Department, Field General Manager Office,

No.139, Broadway, Chennai – 600 104 : 2nd Party / 1st Respondent

The Zonal Manager, Union Bank of India, 2nd Floor, No.139, Broadway, Chennai – 600 104 : 2nd Party / 2nd Respondent

The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Tiruchirapalli : 2nd Party / 3rd Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s D. Ravidranathan, Adv

For the 2nd Party / 1st to 3rd Respondents : M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co, Adv

AWARD

Whereas an Industrial Dispute between the workman and the management has been filed before this Tribunal by the First Party directly under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010 for adjudication, and the same has been taken on the file of this Tribunal as ID 29/2022, due notices were issued to both parties for their appearance.

ID called out. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is no more and has no one to prosecute, hence the case is abated. Record to be consigned to the record room.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1330.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार ओएनजीसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और जनरल एम्प्लॉइज एसोसिएशन के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, मु ंबई-1, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 25/2013) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/12/2013-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक6640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to ONGC and General Employees Association which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-30011/12/2013-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT - 25 of 2013

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of ONGC V/s. T.W. (General Employees Association)

Appearances: For the first party Management : Absent For the second party workmen : Absent Mumbai, dated the 23rd day of February, 2026.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government by its order No. L-30011/12/2013 dated 12/04/2013 passed in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the Management of ONGC, Nhava, in denying the demand of the

workman Shri Sushil Narayan Khedekar that he be absorbed/given permanency of ONGC

on the ground of the contract being sham and bogus, is legal and justified? If not, what

relief the workman is entitled to?"

The workman has filed his statement of claim. However, despite several opportunities granted by this Tribunal, the claimant/workman has failed to file any evidence by way of affidavit or to lead any oral or documentary evidence in support of the averments made in the statement of claim.

The management has remained absent and has not filed any written statement despite repeated opportunities.

It is not in dispute that the workman has filed his statement of claim. However, mere filing of pleadings is not sufficient to establish the allegations made therein. The workman, upon whom the initial burden of proof squarely lies, was required to substantiate his claim by leading cogent evidence.

In the present case, no evidence—oral or documentary—has been led by the workman to prove that the contract was sham and bogus or that he was entitled to absorption/permanency. In view of the settled legal position laid down in V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court, Uptron Powertronics Employees" Union v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), and District Administrative Committee v. Secretary-cum-G.M., District Co-operative Bank Ltd., the failure of the workman to lead evidence is fatal to the reference.

In the absence of any evidence in support of the statement of claim, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman. Consequently, the management is not required to lead any evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Accordingly, the reference stands answered in terms aforesaid.

Award as above.

Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6641

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1331.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इंश्योरें स कं पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री एस.डी. वैराल के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट

के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, मु

ंबई-1, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 25/2005) को जैसा कि

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/7/2005-आईआर(बी-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1331.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to National Insurance Company Ltd. and Shri S. D.Vairal which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-17012/7/2005-IR(B-I)] SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNEMTN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO.CGIT-25 of 2005

PARTIES:-

National Insurance Company Ltd,

V/s.

Their Workman(S.D.Vairal)

APPEARNCE:- For the Management : Mr. S.V. Alva(Adv.) For the Workman : Mr. Arvind Tapole(Adv.) Mumbai, dated 26/02/2026.

AWARD

The present reference has been made by the Central Government vide Order No. L-17012/7/2005-IR(B-I) dated 04.10.2005, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947).

The terms of reference are as under:

1. ―Whether the affected workman Smt. Shobha D. Vairal, Part-Time Sweeper, has put in continuous service as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?‖

2. ―Whether the action of the management of National Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai, in terminating/discontinuing the services of Smt. Shobha D. Vairal, Part-Time Sweeper, w.e.f. 08.07.2003 is legal, proper and justified? If not, to what relief is the affected workman entitled and from which date?‖6642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Today, the matter is listed for settlement. Both parties are present through their learned counsel, and the workman is also present in person.

During the course of hearing, both parties, with the free consent of the workman, jointly submitted before the open Court that the dispute has been amicably settled. The management has agreed to pay a lump-sum amount of ₹60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the workman towards full and final settlement of all her claims, dues, and demands, past, present, and future, arising out of the subject matter of the present reference.

The learned counsel for the management submitted that the said amount shall be paid subject to the workman submitting a No-Dues / No-Claim declaration against the management. The workman has voluntarily accepted the said terms and has stated that she does not wish to contest the matter further.

In view of the above settlement, the reference is answered accordingly and disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

AWARD IS PASSED ACCORDINGLY.

Justice ARVIND KUJMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1332.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स निमंत्रण स्नैक्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और पेट्र ोलियम एम्प्लॉइज यूनियन के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मु ंबई, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 62/2018) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/28/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1332.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 62/2018) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Nimantran Snacks and Petroleum Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-30011/28/2018-IR(M)]

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-2/62 of 2018

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. M/s. Nimantran Snacks The Proprietor, M/s. Nimantran Snacks

Shop No.7, Shivnum Building, Opp. Sita Estate,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6643 R.C. Marg, Aziz Baug, Chembur, Mumbai : 400 074, State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

Party No.2 (Petroleum Employees Union)

The General Secretary, Petroleum Employees Union, Tel-Rasayan Bhavan, Tilak Road, Dadar (E), Mumbai : 400 014, State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management            :        No appearance.
Workmen/Union         :        No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L- 30011/28/2018-IR(M) dated 26.11.2018. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether Shri Mukesh Rai designated as „Supervisor" under the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen

Contractor at canteen of BPCL Mumbai Refinery, Mahul is „workman" under ID Act?

If yes, whether the action of the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen Contractor operating canteen of

BPCL Mumbai Refinery, Mahul w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Rai, Supervisor, w.e.f.

11.06.2016, is just and proper? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. The case is called out today. Both parties are absent on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 15.02.2019 long back despite service of notices. No Statement of Claim and Written Statement have been filed by the parties respectively till today. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner/workman to prove his case. The petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, he is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

Shri Mukesh Rai designated as ‗Supervisor' under the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen

Contractor at canteen of BPCL Mumbai Refinery, Mahul is not ‗workman' under ID Act.

The action of the management of M/s. Nimantran Snacks, Canteen Contractor operating canteen of BPCL

Mumbai Refinery, Mahul w.e.f. 01.04.2016 in terminating the services of Shri Mukesh Rai, Supervisor, w.e.f.

11.06.2016, is just and proper. The concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

Date: 12-03-2026 Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer6644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1333.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

मेसर्स भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और मु ंबई श्रमिक संघ संघर्ष के बीच अनुबंध

में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मु ंबई, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 24/2004) को जैसा कि

[सं. एल-30011/98/2003-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1333.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 24/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Mumbai Shramik Sangh Sangharsh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-30011/98/2003-IR(M)] 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-2/24 of 2004

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. M/s. BPCL.,

The Director, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Refinery Division Mahul , Chembur, Mumbai – 400 074, State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No. 2. (Mumbai Shramik Sangh)

The Secretary,

Mumbai Shramik Sangh, Sangharsh, Quarry Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai – 400 078, State: Maharashtra.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6645

APPEARANCES:

Management            :        Mr. Anand Pai.
                                               Advocate.
Workmen/Union         :        Mr. R. D. Bhat.

Representative.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-30011/98/2003 (IR(M)) dated 15.04.2004. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

a. "Whether the contract between BPCL and respondent No.2 contractor is sham and bogus and

is a camouflage to deprive the workers concerned in the petition of benefits available to

permanent workmen of BPCL;

b. Whether the workers concerned in the petition should be declared permanent workers of

BPCL;

c. What are the wages and consequential benefits t be paid to the workers concerned in the

petition?"

2. Case called out today. Adv. Ms. Lavanya holding brief of the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anand Pai is present before the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the court since 26.06.2023 long back. Although, Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively and after that, first award has been passed by this court on 20.05.2013, in which it has been hold by this court this court that, the employer/ housing colony is held ‗industry' as defined u/s. 2 (J) of the ID Act and the Reference is tenable and parties were directed to remain present for further proceedings of the case, but since 26.06.2023, petitioner/workmen is not coming to the court for further proceedings of the case. No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner till today to prove the contents of the Statement of Claim. The petitioner is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/workman is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/ workman is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

a. The contract between BPCL and respondent No.2 contractor is not sham and bogus

and is not a camouflage to deprive the workers concerned in the petition of benefits

available to permanent workmen of BPCL.

b. The workers concerned in the petition should not be declared permanent workers of

BPCL.

c. No wages and no consequential benefits to be paid to the workers concerned in the

petition.

Date: 12-03-2026 Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer6646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1334.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

हिंदुस्तान पेट्र ोलियम कॉर्पोरे शन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और पेट्र ोलियम एम्प्लॉइज यूनियन के बीच

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मु ंबई, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.-

25/2019) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/12/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1334.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 25/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Petroleum Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-30011/12/2017-IR(M)]

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-2/25 of 2019

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

The General Manager, M/s. HPCL, Mumbai Refinery,

Mahul, Post Box No.18820, B.D. Patil Marg, Mumbai : 400 074, State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Petroleum Employees Union)

The General Secretary, Petroleum Employees Union, HPCL, Mumbai Refinery Unit, Tel- Rasayan Bhavan, Tilak Road,

Dadar (E) Mumbai : 400 014, State: Maharashtra.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6647

APPEARANCES:

Management            :        Miss Deepika Agrawal.
                               Advocate
Workmen/Union         :        No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L- 30011/12/2017-IR(M) dated 25.04.2019. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of HPCL, Mahul Refinery Mumbai, in reducing the

manpower by one position in 3 shift working involving 5 manpower in the Boiler Section of

Operational Department, under the plea of redeployment of surplus workmen in similar jobs due

to discontinuing operation of certain old boilers and its associated utilities, is just and proper? If

not, what relief Petroleum Employees Union is entitled to and what other directions, if any, are

necessary in the matter?"

2. The case is called out today. The learned counsel for the respondent Miss Deepika Agrawal 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/union is not responding and attending the Court since 23.08.2023 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 action of the management of HPCL, Mahul Refinery Mumbai, in reducing the

manpower by one position in 3 shift working involving 5 manpower in the Boiler Section of

Operational Department, under the plea of redeployment of surplus workmen in similar

jobs due to discontinuing operation of certain old boilers and its associated utilities, is just

and proper. The Petroleum Employees Union is not entitled to any relief.

Date: 12-03-2026 Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1335.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार फे रो स्क्रै प

निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और फे रो स्क्रै प निगम लिमिटेड कर्मचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट

के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 20/2020) को जैसा कि

[सं. एल-26011/14/2019-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक6648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1335.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited and Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees' Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-26011/14/2019-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 20 OF 2020

PARTIES: Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees' Union

Vs.

Management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur

REPRESENTATIVES:

For FSNL Employees' Union: Mr. Asit Kumar Kolay, Advocate. Mr. Susanta Kumar Ganguly, Advocate.

For the Management of FSNL: Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate.

INDUSTRY: Iron and Steel.

STATE: West Bengal.

Dated: 03.02.2026

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-26011/14/2019-IR(M) dated 28.05.2020 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur and their superannuated employees for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

― Whether the action of the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur in non-payment of arrear

leave encashment/arrear of HRA arising out of pay revision to the superannuated employees as raised by Ferro Scrap

Nigam Limited Employees' Union vide letter dated 21.01.2019 is proper, legal and justified? If not, what relief such

workmen are entitled to? ‖

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6649

1. On receiving Order No. L-26011/14/2019-IR(M) dated 28.05.2020 from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case was registered on 17.06.2021 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.

2. Mr. Haradhan Sain, General Secretary of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited Employees' Union (CITU & SWFI), Durgapur Unit filed written statement on 13.01.2023. Brief fact of petitioner's case as disclosed in the written statement is

that twenty-two (22) superannuated employees of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as FSNL) have not been paid Leave Salary and forty-three (43) superannuated employees have not been paid House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as HRA) in accordance with to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.2011. It is the case of the concerned union that the wage revision was granted to the employees who were on the rolls of the company on 31.12.2006 and they are entitled to HRA as per letter dated 25.07.2016 and Leave Salary according to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.2011. The retired employees entitled to such dues, requested the management of FSNL vide letter No. FSNLEU/41/18 dated 12.07.2018 for payment. The management neither paid any amount nor responded to the representation made through the union. An Industrial Dispute was raised before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Raniganj at Durgapur claiming HRA and Leave Salary. The conciliation proceeding resulted in a failure and a Failure of Conciliation Report was sent to the Ministry. The appropriate government thereafter referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

3. Regarding non-payment of Leave Salary, the union pointed out that the Tripartite Wage Agreement was signed on 11.02.2011, disclosing that it would be effective from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and employees including those who retired prior to implementation of the agreement but covered under it were paid their regular wage arrears, but the management deprived the retired employees of their difference of Leave Salary, consequent upon wage revision. Since the wage revision was pending at the time of their retirement, they were paid Leave Salary in respect of Earned Leave (EL) and Half Pay Leave (HPL) lying in their credit on the basis of their pre-revised wages. It is urged that on revision of wages twenty-two (22) ex-employees, whose list is enclosed, are entitled to difference of Leave Salary. The union further contended that management of FSNL made a revision of HRA at the rate of twenty percent (20%) of revised Basic Pay from earlier rate

of ten percent (10%) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2010 instead of 01.09.2011. The said rule was implemented in the month of July / August, 2015. It is claimed that the consequential arrear dues as per revision should be paid to the superannuated employees and they are entitled to revised rate of HRA from 01.04.2010 till their retirement.

Accordingly, union has prayed for payment of the aforesaid dues to the superannuated employees with interest thereon from the date it remained unpaid.

4. Management contested the case by filing written statement on 31.03.2023 through Mr. Saurabh Radhesham Tharewal, constituted attorney. According to the management of FSNL the Industrial Dispute is not maintainable in its present form. The dispute is vague and indefinite and not sustainable. The main objection raised by the management is that there is no provision in the wage agreement dated 11.02.2011 for payment of HRA or Leave Salary to the superannuated employees. Referring to Clause No. 4.1.3 of the agreement it is averred that merely due to6650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] enhancement of Basic Pay on wage revision the employees shall not be entitled to difference of other facilities based upon revision of wages. Management further contended that in the meantime another Wage Agreement for the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016 has come into force and the earlier Wage Agreement has lost its force. It is claimed that the Industrial Dispute raised is not tenable and is hopelessly barred by limitation.

5. The central point for consideration is whether the superannuated employees of FSNL are entitled to arrears of Leave Salary and HRA as claimed by the union in their letter dated 21.01.2019 and whether non-payment of such benefits by management is legal and justified.

6. The union has examined Mr. Haradhan Sain, union representative as Workman Witness No. 1. In his affidavit-in-chief he reiterated the claim of the

superannuated employees for payment of difference of Leave Salary on the basis of Wage Agreement signed on 11.02.2011 for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and for payment of difference of HRA at the revised rate of twenty percent (20%) which has been given retrospective effect from 01.04.2010. It is stated that there are twenty-two (22) retired employees who have prayed for difference of Leave Salary and forty-three (43) employees prayed for payment of difference of HRA from 01.04.2010. The workman witness produced the following documents in support of union's case :

(i) Copy of representation dated 12.07.2018 submitted by the witness as General Secretary, addressed to the Unit Head of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited for payment of arrears of House Rent and Leave Salary, is produced as Exhibit W-1.

(ii) Copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.11, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii) Copy of the Memorandum of Settlement along with the Terms of Settlement, as Exhibit W-2/1.

(iv) Copy of a list of twenty-two retired employees who claimed arrear of Leave Salary and Gratuity, as Exhibit W-3.

(v) Copy of Inter-Office Memo dated 21.07.2015 by which it was decided that House Rent Allowance would be paid at enhanced / revised rate w.e.f. 01.04.2010, as Exhibit W-4.

(vi) Copy of a list of forty-three employees who have not received the revised House Rent Allowance w.e.f. 01.04.2010 till the date of retirement, as Exhibit W-5.

(vii) Copy of the Authorization Letter for representing the case of employees, as Exhibit W-6.

(viii) Copy of Inter-Office Memo dated 25.07.2016 for payment of House Rent Allowance, as Exhibit W- 7 and W-9.

(ix) Copy of letter dated 21.01.2019 addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Raniganj at Durgapur regarding non-payment of Leave Salary and HRA, as Exhibit W-8.

(x) Copy of letter dated 30.05.1994 issued by the Dy. Manager (P&A), FSNL addressed to the General Secretary of FSNL Employees' Union, regarding recognition of the union, as Exhibit W-10.

7. Witness denied the suggestion that their union is not a recognized trade union under the Trade Union Act and that forty-three (43) listed petitioners were not members of FSNL Employees' Union during their service period. The witness denied that the names of the employees in Enclosure-5 of the written statement were not the members of his union or that they have not authorized him to represent their case. During re-cross-examination on 19.02.2025 a suggestion was made to the witness that HRA was to be paid from 01.04.2010 as per Memorandum of Settlement and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6651 the witness admitted the same. The evidence of Workman Witness No. 1 reveals that the witness is one of the signatories of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.02.2011. Therefore, it is amply clear that FSNL Employees' Union, Durgapur was a registered and recognized trade union at the relevant time.

8. No evidence has been adduced by the management of FSNL. The case was fixed up for hearing of argument during the Special Campaign.

9. Mr. Asit Kumar Kolay, learned advocate for the union argued that the superannuated employees whose names have been disclosed in Enclosure-3 of the written statement have retired from their service between 30.10.2006 and 16.02.2011 before implementation of the Wage Agreement dated 11.02.2011 which was applicable to them from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 and that they are entitled to difference of Leave Salary on the basis of revised pay. It is submitted that out of twenty-two (22) employees namely B. Hembrom, S. K. Chakrabarty, Ratan Gope, D. D. Bouri and R. Ruidas have died in harness. Learned advocate further claimed that forty-three (43) retired employees who have been enlisted in

Enclosure-5 of the written statement are entitled to difference of enhanced HRA from 01.04.2010 till their retirement.

10. Learned advocate for the management in reply contended that the names of the employees are not mentioned in the Schedule and it is argued that the employees who have superannuated are not entitled to the benefit of difference of HRA and Leave Salary on the basis of the Wage Agreement.

11. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the union and management, pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced. The list of twenty-two (22) employees claiming payment difference of Leave Salary from 01.01.2007 on the basis of revision of pay has been marked as Exhibit W-3 and the list of forty-three (43) retired employees, claiming payment of difference of HRA from 01.04.2010 is marked as Exhibit W-5. Management of FSNL had sufficient notice regarding the identities of the employees but no question was posed to the workman witness challenging the identity of any of the employees whose names are mentioned in Exhibits W-3 and W-5. The Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the management of FSNL, Durgapur and their workmen represented by FSNL Employees' Union, Durgapur on 11.02.2011 has been marked as Exhibit W-2/1 collectively. On a perusal of terms of settlement in Clause No. 2.2.1 which relates to HRA it is mentioned that the employees covered by the Agreement, who are not allotted Company's quarter, shall be paid house rent allowance equal to the HRA rates as per city classification and applicable rates under Government guidelines which is twenty percent (20%) of HRA applicable to the cities classified as ―Y‖ to the employees of FSNL and it is further stated that the payment of HRA on the basis of revised Basic Pay will be made from 01.04.2010. Therefore, as per the Memorandum of Settlement the employees who were on the payroll of the employer company on 01.04.2010 are entitled to the difference of HRA from 01.04.2010 till their date of death or superannuation according to the settled rate of enhanced HRA.

12. The second relief claimed in this case is the payment of difference of Leave Salary to the superannuated employees on the basis of Wage Agreement signed on 11.02.2011. Admittedly, there has been a wage revision of the employees of FSNL which stood due from 01.01.2007 on expiry of the previous wage agreement on 31.12.2006.

According to the Memorandum of Settlement (Exhibit W-2/1), the agreement is valid for a period of five years from 01.01.2007 and it remained operational till 31.12.2011. It is undisputed that the employees who were on the payroll of6652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the company from 01.01.2007 till 31.12.2011 are entitled to the revised wages in terms of wage and allowance benefits. Clause No. 2.1.2 provides that the revised wage structure would apply from 01.01.2007 for different categories of employees as per Annexure-B. This statement suggests that employees who were in service from 01.01.2007 are entitled to revised pay. Clause No. 4.0 of the Memorandum of Settlement deals with implementation of the agreement. It has been agreed upon that the revised wage structure shall come into effect from 01.01.2007 and shall continue to be in operation till 31.12.2011 and in respect of the other provisions, the date of effect would be the dates indicated in the respective clauses of the agreement. Payment of Leave Salary is made on the basis of the Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance for a period of three hundred days (300) days of outstanding leave at the time of superannuation of the employee. If the Basic Pay is revised on 01.01.2007, the consequential benefit arises in Leave Salary would accrue to the employees, commensurate with their outstanding leave. Therefore, the superannuated employees, including who have died in harness after 01.01.2007 are entitled to difference of their Leave Salary on the basis of revision of wages. Mr. S. K. Banerjee, appearing in the list marked as Exhibit W-3 retired on 30.10.2006 before the wage agreement came into effect from 01.01.2007. Therefore, he will not be entitled to the payment of difference of Leave Salary. Management in their written statement has stated that in Clause No. 4.1.3 of the Memorandum of Settlement it is mentioned that merely due to enhancement of Basic Pay, entitlement of the employee for different facilities shall

not change and their eligibility shall remain same. The terms of agreement have stated that the HRA would be enhanced by a certain percentage of the Basic Pay and the same would be payable from 01.04.2010. Therefore, management cannot deny its responsibility of paying HRA at an enhanced rate to its forty-three (43) ex-employees.

Regarding, payment of difference of Leave Salary, management has referred to Clause 4.1.3 of the agreement and argued that entitlement of the employees for other facilities shall not change due to enhancement of Basic Pay and their eligibility shall remain same. In order to meet this argument, it is necessary to refer to the provision of Clause 4.1.2 of the Memorandum of Settlement where it is stated that the benefits provided for under the previous agreement will continue, until otherwise specified in this agreement. The Wage Agreement which came into force from 01.01.2007 does not contain any provision to curtail the benefit of Leave Salary granted to the employees at the time of their retirement. Leave Salary is calculated on the basis of the Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance prevalent at the time of superannuation of the employee. The twenty-one (21) of enlisted employees except Mr. S. K. Banerjee would therefore be entitled to difference of Leave Salary on the basis of revised pay.

13. Management in their written statement has contended that another Wage Agreement between management and representative of the union has been reached for the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016. Therefore, the earlier Wage Agreement has lost its force. This argument is devoid of any force as the previous Wage Agreement is applies to the employees who were on the payroll of the employer company at the relevant time and their entitlement arises out of the agreement of wage revision of the employees dated 11.02.2011. Since, the management of the employer company did not make payment of difference of HRA and Leave Salary to its retired employees on the basis of revision of pay effected from 01.01.2007, they are certainly entitled to receive such benefits. Their rights would not be affected or prejudiced due to a subsequent wage revision applicable

from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016, which is not applicable to the enlisted ex-employees herein. It would be just and appropriate to direct the management of the employer company to assess the dues of the concerned workmen and[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6653 make payment on account of arrears of difference of Leave Salary and HRA within four months from the date of communication of the Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is allowed on contest against the management of Ferro Scrap Nigam Limited, Durgapur. Twenty-two (21) ex-employees except those who retired prior to 31.12.2006 or their legal heirs, in appropriate cases are entitled to difference of Leave Salary on the basis of revised pay from 01.01.2007 onwards according to their date of superannuation till 31.12.2011. Forty-three (43) enlisted ex-employees are entitled to arrears of difference of House Rent Allowance from 01.04.2010 till their superannuation. Management is directed to make payment of arrears to the concerned ex-employees or their legal heirs, in appropriate cases within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above decision. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1336.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स तापस कु मार चंदा सिक्योरिटी एजेंसी; इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरे शन (पाइपलाइन) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और स्वपन सरकार के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, आसनसोल, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 05/2023) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/01/2022-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1336.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 05/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency; Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline) and Swapan Sarkar which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-30012/01/2022-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 05 OF 2023

PARTIES: Swapan Sarkar

Vs.

(1) M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency

(2) Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline), PHBPL, Bolpur

6654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Workman:               Swapan Sarkar (in person).
For  M/s. TKCSA:               None.
For  IOCL:                     Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, Advocate.
INDUSTRY:         Oil and Gas.
STATE:            West Bengal.
Dated:            03.02.2026

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-30012/01/2022-IR(M) dated 12.01.2023 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e., (1) M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency and (2) Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline), PHBPL, Bolpur and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

― Whether action of the management of M/s Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency terminating the services

of Sri Swapan Sarkar and not reinstating him in duty, as raised by him vide letter dated 31.12.2020 is proper, legal

and justified? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to and what direction, if any, is necessary in the matter? ‖

1. On receiving Order No. L-30012/01/2022-IR(M) dated 12.01.2023 from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the Industrial Dispute, a Reference case was registered on 20.01.2023 and an order was passed for issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims.

2. The aggrieved workman initially appeared through Ms. Saswati Thakur, learned advocate and filed his written statement on 30.05.2023. The narratives which unfold from the written statement is that the workman is an ex-army

personnel and he joined his service as a private Security Guard in the premises of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as IOCL) the Principal Employer through various contractor firms from time to time. The workman discharged his work efficiently and received his salary from the Principal Employer. On 09.12.2020 when the workman was preforming his duty at the Colony Main Gate of IOCL (Pipeline) at Bolpur a group of five (5) Eunuchs wanted to enter the Colony and he stop them as a security measure and asked them to obtain necessary permission from higher authority. They informed that there was a new born baby in the home of Mr. Suniti Tudu, Security Officer and they wanted to enter the colony. The petitioner workman made a telephone call to Mr. Tudu and informed the incident and also informed the matter to Mr. Ajay Pahuja, DGM but they remain silent and thereafter the group of Eunuch assaulted the petitioner and entered the Colony forcibly. The workman checked the Identity Cards of the Eunuchs and hand it over to the Mr. Suniti Tudu, Security Officer. After the Eunuchs left the premises. Mr. Suniti Tudu, Security Officer of IOCL made a complaint against the petitioner workman before the Office In-charge of the Police Station in connection with the incident which occurred on that date. The contractor firm thereafter terminated[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6655 him from service without giving any opportunity. Several appeals were made by the petitioner before the Principal Employer but the contractor and the Principal Employer did not pay any heed to his appeals. Petitioner being aggrieved with such termination of service without any notice, initiated an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Durgapur. The conciliation failed and the matter has been referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. It has been prayed that the Opposite Party employers be directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages.

3. Mr. Tapas Kumar Chanda, the proprietor of the Contractor Firm, M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency (hereinafter referred to as M/s. TKCSA) (Opposite Party) filed written statement on 26.09.2023. It is contended that the

allegations made in the written statement filed by the petitioner are false. He has not disclosed the actual reason for his discontinuation from service under the Principal Employer. It is the case of the contractor firm that Swapan Sarkar was engaged as a Security Guard under M/s. Rakesh Kumar Jha Security Agency, having its Office at 26, S.N. Banerjee Street, Badrakali, PS- Uttarpara till 30.09.2020. After termination of the contract, Rakesh Kumar Jha left IOCL premises without taking any responsibility of continuation of service of the petitioner employed under him due to over age and when M/s. TKCSA was entrusted with the contract to provide security service as per terms and conditions in the agreement dated 01.10.2020 and the workman disregarding the terms of agreement, regarding not engaging security personnel above sixty (60) years, forcibly occupied the post in the premises of the Principal Employer with the help of the local political party. As per work order there was a requirement of thirteen (13) Security Guards at the premises of IOCL. The contractor security agency did not have the option to engage any person of their choice under political pressure. Opposite Party did not get any opportunity to verify the documents of the staff prior to their recruitment. After scrutiny of the documents, the Principal Employer informed that the petitioner has already crossed the age limit as per Clause 2.3.7 (page 24) of the Service Agreement and accordingly by letter dated 05.10.2020 the Principal Employer requested the proprietor of M/s. TKCSA to provide Security Guards as per requirement. The petitioner was discontinued for being over-age and the matter was communicated to him accordingly. He was given one month's time for settling at any other place but he refused to handover his charge to the replaced guard and he tried to occupy his post without paying any heed to the request of Principal Employer or the Security Agency. Ultimately with the help of Police, Principal Employer replaced the petitioner. The Opposite party is an ex-serviceman and has an empanelled Security Agency under the Director General of Resettlement (hereinafter referred to as DGR), under the Ministry of Defence. The scheme was introduced to resettle the ex-serviceman

under Public Sector Undertaking, who retired from their service before the date of his superannuation. An Empanelment Certificate in favour of Opposite Party was issued which was valid up to 02.08.2021. The License / Empanelment Certificate issued in favour of M/s. TKCSA expired w.e.f. 03.08.2021 and the business was closed down by the proprietor. As per DGR guidelines Security Agencies would remove the ex-serviceman from the active panel of DGR when he attained the age of sixty (60) years and the validity of his empanelment had ceased. However, the contract will be allowed to run to completion. The petitioner being a registered member of DGR has ample scope for better carrier opportunity in any other agency or organization as per DGR guidelines. Further contention is that on 01.01.2020 as per Work Order No. 26593618 dated 30.09.2020 all staff engaged under previous agency switch over to the Opposite Party by dint of preferential right of their earlier engagement under erstwhile contractor within the premises of the Principal Employer. All erstwhile security staff remained engaged at their respective place and6656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] continued their service. The established condition is that contractors will change but the Security Guards would continue. The specific case of the contractor firm is that the petitioner has completed sixty (60) years at the time of reporting for his duty on 01.10.2020. He had crossed the maximum age for his employment. Accordingly, the petitioner had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. He has made misleading statements and his application for reinstatement is liable to be dismissed.

4. IOCL filed their written statement on 20.11.2023. The specific case of the Principal Employer is that the petitioner is an employee under M/s. TKCSA and the Principal Employer has executed a work order bearing No. 26593618 dated 30.09.2020 for the period from 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2022, as per terms and conditions of the contract.

It is urged that the application is liable to be dismissed.

5. Swapan Sarkar examined himself as Workman Witness No. 1. He filed his

affidavit-in-chief stating that he has been working as a private security guard through a contractor firm. He has reiterated the statements made in his written statement and claimed that he has been discontinued from his employment in a wrongful manner. In his examination-in-chief he produced the following documents :

(i) Copy of Appointment Letter issued by the Security Agency is produced as Exhibit W-1.

(ii) Copy of letter dated 10.12.2020 by which the Security Agency gave Swapan Sarkar prior Notice of termination, as Exhibit W-2.

(iii) Copy of letter dated 11.12.2020 of Swapan Sarkar addressed to the DGM, IOCL (PHBPL), Bolpur sent under registered post, as Exhibit W-3.

(iv) Copy of a letter dated 11.12.2020 addressed to Tapas Kumar Chandra Security Agency sent under registered post, as Exhibit W-4.

(v) Copy of application dated 01.02.2021 of Swapan Sarkar addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Durgapur for saving his job (copy of application is marked as Exhibit W-5).

(vi) Copy of application dated 02.03.2021 of Swapan Sarkar addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Durgapur, relating to his termination, as Exhibit W-6.

6. None appeared for M/s. TKCSA to cross-examine the witness. During cross-examination by IOCL, Principal Employer, the witness deposed that he was never appointed by IOCL as a Security Guard and he served IOCL under control and supervision of the M/s. TKCSA and produced copy of the Identity Card which has been marked as Exhibit W-7. Witness further deposed that he used to receive salary from M/s. TKCSA through bank payment. The petitioner stated that he has no grievance against IOCL and he has sought relief against M/s. TKCSA.

7. No evidence has been adduced by M/s. TKCSA or by IOCL.

8. The short question for consideration is as to whether the termination of Swapan Sarkar by M/s. TKCSA is legal and to what relief the workman is entitled to.

9. The workman appearing in person and argued that he had been wrongfully terminated from his service by the private Security Agency in an illegal manner without issuing any Notice of termination. It is further stated that the Security Guard deployed at the premises of IOCL at Bolpur work up to the age of sixty-five (65) years but in his case,[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6657 he was illegally discontinued. None appeared for M/s. TKCSA, the contractor firm, which has engaged the workman, maintaining the continuity of his service.

10. Mr. Pradip Kumar Goswami, learned advocate for the management of IOCL argued that the petitioner workman has no employer-employee relationship with IOCL. The workman was never appointed by IOCL and in his cross-examination the WW-1 admitted such fact. The witness also stated that he has not prayed for any relief against IOCL.

11. I have considered the argument advanced by the petitioner and learned advocate for IOCL in light of the pleadings and evidence on record. It may be gathered from the written statement of M/s. TKCSA that Swapan Sarkar was engaged as a Security Guard under M/s. Rakesh Kumar Jha Security Agency till 30.09.2020. According to the Work Order No. 26593618 dated 30.09.2020, the Principal Employer engaged M/s. TKCSA to provide private Security Guards to IOCL, Bolpur from 01.10.2020. The Principal Employer in Paragraph No. 2 of their written statement stated that the Work Order was issued in favour of M/s. TKCSA from 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2022.

According to the Private Security Agency the

petitioner ex-serviceman had attained sixty (60) years of age and as per terms and conditions of the contract the service of Swapan Sarkar could not be continued. The Opposite Party, Security Agency did not produce the copy of the contract to prove that the petitioner had attained sixty years of age or for such reason he was not entitled to be continued as a Security Guard from 01.10.2020. No attempt was made on the part of Security Agency to prove that the proper Notice of termination was issued to him disclosing the reason of termination. From Exhibit W-1, the Letter of appointment of Swapan Sarkar issued by M/s. TKCSA, I find that the date of birth of Swapan Sarkar is 05.01.1961.

Therefore, the workman did not complete sixty years of age on 01.10.2020. It is true that a letter dated 10.12.2020 (Exhibit W-2) was issued by the Security Agency to Swapan Sarkar and in the said letter, the termination of service was given effect from the very next dated i.e., 11.12.2020. Though the service of the workman was contractual in nature but from the material on record and the admission of the contractor firm I find that the contract between the employer and contractor firm is formal and in Paragraph No. 7 of the written statement that the Opposite Party had no scope to engage a single person of his choice due to political pressure and they were under compulsion to appoint the same Security Guards who were working under previous contractor. Under such situation the aggrieved workman is entitled to a clear one month's notice before his termination, in default he is entitled to be paid one month's wage from the period of Notice and as per provision under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 the workman would be entitled to retrenchment compensation on the basis of continuous service rendered. In the present case the petitioner workman failed to establish how many years of continuous service he has rendered and whether he has continuously worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months. I therefore hold that in the present case the only relief the petitioner workman would get is Pay for one month in lieu of Notice of termination. Since the workman was not appointed by the Principal Employer and he has claimed no relief against the Principal Employer, he is

therefore not entitled to reinstatement in the service of Security Guard under IOCL. For abrupt termination of workman without Notice of termination much earlier to his attaining sixty (60) years of age on 04.01.2021, it would be just and appropriate to grant a one-time compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the workman, payable by M/s. TKCSA along with one (1) month's Pay in lieu of Notice prior to his termination.

6658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Industrial Dispute is dismissed on contest against Indian Oil Corporation (Pipeline), PHBPL, Bolpur, Principal Employer. It is allowed ex-parte in part against M/s. Tapas Kumar Chanda Security Agency. The Private Security Agency having terminated the workman without prior Notice of one month shall be liable to pay one (1) month's Pay to the workman Swapan Sarkar along with a one-time compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for abrupt termination of his work. The Security Agency shall pay the said amounts within two (2) months from the date of communication of the Award. Let an award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment , Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1337.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंश्योरें स कॉर्पोरे शन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री ए. राजू के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 34/2016) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25 .06. 2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/8/2019-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O.1337.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Sri A. Raju which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-17012/8/2019-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 2nd day of February , 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 34/2016

Between:

Sri A. Raju D.No. 13-230, Arilova TIC Point, Vishakapatnam-530040. ..….Petitioner[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6659 AND

1. The Manager (E & OS)

Appearances: For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent(s): Shri Venkatesh Dixit, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-17012/8/2019 (IR(M) dated 26-04-2016 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of LIC and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam in termination

the services of Sri A. Raju, Ex-temporary sub staff/Life operator in January 2013 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman concerned is entitled?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 34/2016 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for filing of claim statement and documents. Despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity, the petitioner did not file any claim statement or documents. Hence, in the absence of a claim statement, a ‗No-Claim' Award is passed. Transmit.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. Nisha, Lower Division Clerk , corrected by me on this the 2nd day of Februrary, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1338.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स भारत पेट्र ोलियम कॉर्पोरे शन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और पेट्र ोलियम कर्मचारी संघ के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मु ंबई, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 34/2013) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/15/2013-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक6660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1338.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Petroleum Employees Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-30011/15/2013-IR(M)]

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-2/34 of 2013

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. M/s. BPCL.,

The General Manager (HRS), M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001, State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Petroleum Employees Union)

The General Secretary, Petroleum Employees Union, Tel Rasayan Bhavan, Tilak Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai – 400 014, State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management            :        Mr. Anand Pai.
                               Advocate.
Workmen/Union         :        Mr. Sudhakar Ghag.
                               Representative.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-30011/15/2013 (IR(M)) dated 28.05.2013. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6661

"Whether the action of the management of BPCL (Marketing), Mumbai, in awarding the

punishment of reduction in basic salary by two stages upon Shri D. B. Rain (Staff No.36473) vide

order dated 18.11.2011 and keeping enquiry pending for a period of more than seven (7) years is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The case is called out today. Ms. Lavanya holding brief of learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anand Pai is present before the court but no one is present on behalf of the union/party no.2. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner/union is not responding and attending the Court since long back. Today case is fixed for hearing on Ex-16. Ex-16 has been filed by the General Secretary Mr. Sudhakar K. Ghag on 29.12.2020, in which he has stated that, union has no interest in continuing this matter further and has no more claims/demands against the management of BPCL with respect to the issues raised in this Industrial Dispute or otherwise and it is also stated that, this affidavit is being filed for the purpose of withdrawing the instant Reference. In view of the above union has prayed that, the Industrial Dispute be disposed off as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the respondent has endorsed on this application that, he has no objection. In view of the above, instant Reference is disposed off as withdrawn. Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of BPCL (Marketing), Mumbai, in awarding the

punishment of reduction in basic salary by two stages upon Shri D. B. Rain (Staff No.36473)

vide order dated 18.11.2011 and keeping enquiry pending for a period of more than seven

(7) years is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Date: 12-03-2026 Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1339.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

मेसर्स भारत पेट्र ोलियम कॉर्पोरे शन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और महाराष्ट्र जनरल कामगार यूनियन

के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मु ंबई, पंचाट (रिफरे न्स न.- 47/2006) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/38/2006-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1339.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 47/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Maharashtra General Kamgar Union which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-30011/38/2006- IR(M)]

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-2/47 of 2006

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

6662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No. 1. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

The Dy. General Manager (HRS), M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 038, State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN.

Party No.2 (Maharashtra General Kamgar Union)

The President,

252, Janta Colony, Ramnarayan Marg, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai – 400 077, State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management            :  Mr. Anand Pai.
                         Advocate.
Workmen/Union         :  No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-30011/38/2006 (IR(M)) dated 29.08.2006. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of BPCL Marketing Division, Mumbai, in terminating

the services of Sh. Nasiruddin Pyaru Shaikh is justified? If not, what relief Shr. Nasiruddin Pyaru

Shaikh is entitled to?"

2. Case called out today. Adv. Ms. Lavanya holding brief of the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Anand Pai is present before the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the sole petitioner was died and the application for bringing Legal Heirs on behalf of petitioners was filed before this court on 23.07.2014. This court has passed an order on this application that, ―the Legal Heirs of Mr. N. M. Shaikh be brought on record but this order has not been complied with by Legal Heirs of the deceased till today and they are not coming continuously to the court since 31.01.2025.‖ They were also absent on 28.05.2025, 13.05.2025 and 03.12.2025. Today also they are not responding and attending the court. Although, Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively, but no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove the contents of the Statement of Claim. The petitioners are not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/workman is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/ workman is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of BPCL Marketing Division, Mumbai, in terminating the

services of Sh. Nasiruddin Pyaru Shaikh is justified. Shr. Nasiruddin Pyaru Shaikh is not

entitled to any relief.

Date: 12-03-2026 Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6663

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1340.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

मेसर्स बिड़ला सन लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कं पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और सुश्री लता हरिचंद्र सनप के बीच

अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, मु ंबई, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 32/2015) को

जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को

प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/6/2015-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1340.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ms. Lata Harichandra Sanap which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-17012/6/2015-IR(M)]

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-2/32 of 2015

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

Party No. 1. M/s. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., The Director M/s. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd 1India Bull Centre Tower No.1, 15th & 16th Floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 814, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400 013, State: Maharashtra.

AND

THEIR WORKMAN.

Party No.2 (Ms. Lata H. Sanap)

Ms. Lata Harichandra Sanap,

R. No.7, Shree Hari Building, Behind N. R. Nagar, Patil Plaza-2, Diva (West), Thane – 400 612,6664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] State: Maharashtra.

APPEARANCES:

Management             :            Mr. P. A. Deogaonkar.
                                    Advocate.
Workmen                :             No appearance.

AWARD

(Delivered on 12-03-2026)

1. This Reference has been made by the Central Government in exercise of powers under clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi, order No. L-17012/6/2015 (IR(M)) dated 03.06.2015. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

1. "Whether the termination of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap, from the services of M/s. Birla

Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai has followed without following due process of Law?

2. Whether the termination order issued in respect of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap is illegal and

malafide?

3. If so, to what relief the Applicant entitled to?"

2. The case is called out today. The Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. P. A. Deogaonkar is present before the Court, but no one is present on behalf of the petitioner/workman on repeated calls. From perusal of record, it is apparent that, the petitioner is not responding and attending the Court since 21.04.2020 long back. No Although, Statement of Claim and Written Statements have been filed by the parties respectively but no other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove the contents of the Statement of Claim. The petitioner/workman is not coming to the court since long back. It appears that, the petitioner/workman is not interested to contest the case furthermore. The claim of the petitioner/ workman is not proved. So, the case is closed.

Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

1. The termination of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap, from the services of M/s. Birla Sun

Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai has followed by following due process of Law.

2. The termination order issued in respect of Smt. Lata Harichandra Sanap is not illegal

and not malafide.

3. The Applicant is not entitled to any relief.

Date: 12-03-2026 Justice SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, Presiding Officer/Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1341.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स टाटा स्टील लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मचारी के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, धनबाद, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 66/2009) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-20012/74/2009-आईआर(सीएम-I)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6665

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1341.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 66/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and Their Workmen which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[F. No. L-20012/74/2009-IR(CM-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1,DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d)& (2A) of I.D.Act. 1947.

Reference Case No. 66/2009

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd.,

Jamadoba, Dhanbad

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Shri Sachindra Kumar Pandey

Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :-Sri D.K Verma, Ld. Advocate

For the workmen :-Sri D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand. Industry:-Coal

Dated 06/04/2026

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub –section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) Government Of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No.L-20012/74/2009-IR(CM-I) dated 04/12/2009 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer i.e. management of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., Jamadoba, Dhanbad and their workman through the Member, Rashtriya Colliery MazdoorSangh, Dhanbad for adjudication by this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

―i) Whether the action of the Management of Tata Steel Limited, in not providing dependant

employment to Sri Purushotam Kumar, son of Late Kapildeo Mandal, Belt Operator is justified and legal?‖ ii)

To what relief is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal entitled?‖

2. The case of the workman as per the written statement filed on his behalf is that Late Kapildeo Mandal having P.No. 216655 was employed as Belt Operator in No. 6 and 7 Pits of Jamadoba Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and he was continuously employed putting in unblemished record of service from 26.07.1984 to 30.03.2006 and after 22 years of this service after doing his shift duty on 30.03.2006 from 5:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. he deposited his Cap Lamp in Lamp Cabin and while he was leaving from his place of work, he was killed on the way in the premises of the Tata Steel Ltd. at distance of about 100 Meters to the work place but after his death his dependent son was not given employment in lieu of his father Late Kapildeo Mandal disregarding innumerable requests of his family members and of the union and therefore Industrial Dispute was raised which ended in failure in conciliation resulting the reference of his case before this Tribunal. As the accident of killing took place in the premises of the company so his dependent was entitled for employment in all bonafides but it was denied to him by the company although in such nature of case6666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the company has given dependent employment in several cases which is discriminatory, improper, unfair and illegal and at last it was prayed to direct the company for providing dependent employment of the deceased employee.

3. On the other hand the case of the management as per the written statement filed on his behalf is that the present reference is not maintainable. The employees of Jharia Division of Tata Steel Ltd. are guided by the bipartite agreement with the union in respect of dependent employment. As per the employment procedure of the company employment will be offered to the male dependent of an employee who meets with fatal accident or suffers permanent total disability (100%) due to an accident while on duty. In the absence of an adult male dependent, employment may be offered to the widow and the widow so employed may, if she so wishes, resign from services in favour of employment of her son on his attaining majority. The benefit under employees family benefit scheme may be extended to the family in lieu of employment if so opted. This will be in addition to the accident compensation payable in such cases. According to the employment procedure of the company in vogue the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal is not entitled for employment in the Steel Company. The deceased employee was appointed on 26.07.1984 and expired on 31.03.2006. He was an underground employee at 6&7 Pits Colliery. The underground employee is required to get his attendance booked in ‗C' form register in the attendance cabin at the beginning of the shift and get himself ‗OUT' before leaving the colliery premises at the end of the shift. An underground employee is also required to take the cap lamp from the lamp cabin situated at the pit top before going underground and deposit the same at the lamp cabin at the end of the shift before leaving the colliery premises. On 30.03.2006, the deceased employee was in ‗B' shift duty commencing from 5:00 P.M. on 30.03.2006 to 1:00 A.M. of 31.03.2006 at 6&7 Pits Colliery and was deployed to work as Belt Operator in the colliery. Accordingly he got his attendance booked in Form ‗C' Register at the attendance cabin in the beginning of the shift and also got him ‗OUT' at the end of the shift. He had deposited his cap lamp in the cap lamp cabin of 6&7 Pits Colliery at the end of the shift before leaving the colliery premises. He had neither met with any accident nor received any injury while on duty in ‗B' Shift i.e. from 5:00 PM on 30.03.2006 to 1:00 A.M. on 31.03.2006. Usha Devi wife of Late Kapildeo Mandal filed a case under Workmen's Compensation Act for payment of compensation before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dhanbad who referred the same to the P.O Labour Court, Dhanbad for adjudication that was registered as WC Case No. 1/2009 and after hearing the parties the Ld. Court held that the deceased employee has not received any injury in course of employment and so the applicant is not entitled for compensation and in view of this matter the son of deceased employee was not entitled for employment as per provision of employment procedure of the company. In rejoinder portion the management has also taken the same stand and denied the entitlement of the applicant and at last it was prayed to hold that the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal is not entitled for any relief in this case.

4. The workman has also submitted his rejoinder to the W/S filed on behalf of the management submitting that the dependent employment is an automatic condition and if an employee dies during the service tenure as per NCWA his dependent is entitled to the service. The workman has denied all the stands taken by the management in its written statement.

5. Issue

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties following issue has been framed:

―i) Whether the action of the Management of Tata Steel Limited, in not providing dependant employment to Sri Purushotam Kumar, son of Late Kapildeo Mandal, Belt Operator is justified and legal? And if not, to what relief is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal entitled?‖

6. To prove his case the applicant Purushotam Kumar has examined himself as WW-1.

7. No documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the workman.

8. On the other hand the management has examined MW-1 Sapan Kumar Patra.

9. Following documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the management:

Exhibit M-1 – Copy of Order dated 01.10.2010 passed in W.C. Case No. 01/2009 by the P.O. Labour Court, Dhanbad

Exhibit M-2 – Copy of Procedure for employment of employee-wards at Jharia Group of Collieries

Exhibit M-3 – Copy of NCWA-IV Chapter-IX

Exhibit M-4 – Copy of Deposition of Purushotam Kumar in W.C. Case No. 01/2009

Exhibit M-5 – Copy of Deposition of Usha Devi in W.C. Case No. 01/2009

Exhibit M-6 - Copy of Deposition of Mohan Turi in W.C. Case No. 01/2009

Exhibit M-7 - Copy of Deposition of Govind Prasad in W.C. Case No. 01/2009

Exhibit M-8 - Copy of Deposition of Raghvendra Kumar Nirala in W.C. Case No. 01/2009

Exhibit M-9 - Copy of Deposition of Sapan Kumar Patro in W.C. Case No. 01/2009[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6667 10. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.

11. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of the workman has submitted that Late Kapildeo Mandal was permanent employee of Tata Steel Ltd. and he commenced his duty from 5 P.M. on 30.03.2006 to 1 A.M. on 31.03.2006 and after completing his duty he was returning to his home but unfortunately he was killed at a distance of about 100 meters from his work place. He had rendered continuous service of 22 years since 26.07.1984 to 31.03.2006. He died during tenure of his service so his dependent son Purushotam Kumar is entitled to employment in his place as per NCWA but his claim was rejected by the management on the ground that the provision of NCWA are not applicable in his case. He had filed W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was rejected by the P.O. Labour Court, Dhanbad holding that he was not killed in course of employment and against that order he has preferred M.A. No. 293 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. His claim is not based only on the ground of death of his father during course of employment but also as per the provision of NCWA and in similar situation the management had provided employment to the dependent of one Late Geeta Devi.

12. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the management has submitted that as per the employment procedure of the company the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal is not entitled for employment in the Steel Company because as per the employment procedure the dependent of an employee is entitled for employment in case an employee meets with fatal accident or suffers permanent total disability due to an accident while on duty but the same is not applicable in case of the present reference. The applicant had also filed W.C. Case No. 1/2009 but the same was rejected by the Labour Court, Dhanbad and this reference case has no merit and so prayed to dismiss the same.

13. Now as regards the oral evidence adduced in this case from the side of the applicant, WW-1 Purushotam Kumar who is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal has deposed that Late Kalidas Mandal was permanent employee of Tata Steel Ltd. and on 30.03.2006 and he commenced his duty from 5 P.M. on 30.03.2006 to 1 A.M. on 31.03.2006 and after completing his duty he was returning to his home but unfortunately he was killed at a distance of about 100 meters from his work place. He had rendered continuous service of 22 years since 26.07.1984 to 31.03.2006. He died during tenure of his service and so his dependent son Purushotam Kumar is entitled to employment in his place as per NCWA but his claim was rejected by the management on the ground that the provision of NCWA are not applicable in his case. He filed W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was rejected by the P.O. Labour Court, Dhanbad holding that he was not killed in course of employment and against that order he has preferred M.A. No. 293 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. His claim is not based only on the ground of death of his father during course of employment but also as per the provision of NCWA. In cross-examination he has stated that he filed application for employment in place of his father who died due to accident during the tenure of service and he had also filed the case before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner claiming compensation being W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was transferred to Labour Court, Dhanbad where it was held that as his father had not died due to accident in course of employment, he was not entitled to get compensation. He has denied the fact that his father had not died during course of employment. He has further stated that he has no knowledge if there is any procedure in Tata Company regarding dependent employment or any provision of NCWA and denied the suggestion that he is not entitled to dependent employment.

14. No documentary evidence has been adduced from the side of the applicant in this case.

15. Now as regards the oral evidence of the management, MW-1 Sapan Kumar Patra who is working as clerk at General Manager's Office Jamadoba of Tata Steel Ltd. has deposed that as per the employment procedure of the company, the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal is not entitled for employment in the Steel Company because as per the employment procedure the dependent of an employee is entitled for employment in case an employee meets with a fatal accident or suffers permanent total disability due to an accident while on duty but the same is not applicable in case of the present reference. The applicant had also filed W.C. Case No. 1/2009 but the same was rejected by the Labour Court, Dhanbad and this reference case has no merit. In cross-examination he has stated that the workman died during his service. He cannot say if the dependent gets employment in coal industries after the death of his parent employee. He also cannot say if NCWA is applicable in Tata Company.

16. Now as regards the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the management, Exhibit M-1 is the copy of order dated 01.10.2010 passed by the P.O, Labour Court, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that was filed by one Usha Devi, wife of Late Kapildeo Mandal against the Manager of TISCO Colliery claiming compensation of Rs. 3,68,340/- for death of her husband in TISCO Colliery but her case was dismissed by the Labour Court holding that the deceased workman was not murdered in course of employment. Exhibit M-4 to M-9 are the certified copies of deposition of the witnesses namely Purushotam Kumar, Usha Devi, Mohan Turi, Govind Prasad, Raghvendra Kumar Nirala and Sapan Kumar Patro respectively in W.C. Case No. 01/2009 that ultimately resulted in dismissal. Exhibit M-2 is copy of procedure for employment of employee-wards at Jharia Group of Collieries dated 27.11.1997 in which it has been stated that an employee on completion of 15 years of satisfactory service may register one of his/her dependents in the approved category (son, brother, adopted son, son-in-law and grandson) for employment on his service and employment will be offered, unless otherwise stated, to the registered dependent of an employee who ceases to be in employment after completing 30 years or more service, subject to the availability of vacancy in the standard force and requirement. Such employment to the registered dependents may be offered along with those in6668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] temporary pool subject to priorities agreed with the union. Employment will be offered to the male dependent of an employee who meets with a fatal accident or suffers permanent total disability (100%) due to an accident while on duty. In the absence of an adult male dependent, employment may be offered to the widow and the benefit under Employees' Family Benefit Scheme may be extended to the family in lieu of employment if so opted and this will be in addition to the accident compensation payable in such cases. Exhibit M-3 is the copy of Chapter-IX of NCWA-IV which deals with the Social Security such as Life Cover Scheme, Workmen's Compensation Benefits as well as Employment to the dependent out of which Rule 9.4.1 is relevant for this case which says that Employment would be provided to one dependent of workers disabled permanently and those who meet with death while in service.

17. On perusal of Exhibit M-2 it is evident that the case of the applicant does not fall under any of the categories mentioned therein but as regards Exhibit M-3 which is copy of Chapter-IX of NCWA-IV and got exhibited on behalf of the management in his favour, on careful perusal of Rule 9.4.1 it is clear that there are 2 categories who have been given entitlement to the dependent employment out of which No. 1 is dependent of workers disabled permanently and No.2 is those who meet with death while in service and the case of the present applicant falls in the second category as the deceased Kapildeo Mandal died/killed while in service and therefore the present applicant namely Purushotam Kumar who is the son of Late Kapildeo Mandal who was permanent Belt Operator in Jharia division of M/s. Tata Steel Limited, is entitled to the dependent employment in place of his father who died on 31.03.2006.

18. MW-1, Sapan Kumar Patra though has deposed in Paragraph-5 of his examination-in-chief that the employment provision of NCWA is not applicable in Tata Steel Limited but in his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say whether NCWA is applicable to Tata Company or not and therefore the evidence of this witness on this point does not support the case of management in any way.

Though in the note of 9.4.1 it has been mentioned that in regard to the employment of dependent of employees, TISCO will follow their existing practices but it has nowhere categorically been mentioned in it that the Rules of the NCWA will not be applicable in case of employment to the dependent of the TISCO employees.

19. Thus on the basis of above appreciations of the facts, circumstances and evidences on record this Tribunal finds and holds that the action of the management of Tata Steel Limited in not providing dependent employment to Sri Purushotam Kumar son of Late Kapildeo Mandal, Belt Operator is neither justified nor legal and accordingly he is entitled to the dependent employment in place of his father. The issue is decided in favour of the applicant and the Management is directed to provide employment to the applicant Purushotam Kumar within a period of 3 months from the date of publication of this Award. The reference is answered accordingly.

Let the copies of Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and notification.

SACHINDRA KUMAR PANDEY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1342.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री जी.एस. इन्नैया सेल्वराज के बीच अनुबंध

में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 50/2023) को जैसा कि

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ

था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-72]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1342.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 50/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri G.S. Innnaiah Selvaraj which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-72]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6669

CHENNAI

ID No. 50/2023

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 15-04-2026

Sh. G.S. Innnaiah Selvaraj, No.3/585, Govindamedu, Kilacher PO, Thiruvallur Dist. PIN – 631 402 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Salem Division, Post Box No.776, Johnsonpot, Salem – 636 007 : 2nd Party /First Respondent

2. The Executive Director,

LIC of India, Marketing / PPD, Central Office, Marketing Department, 3rd Floor, West Wing, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai – 400 021 : 2nd Party / Second Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Representative of the Respondent

Award

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the demand of Shri G.S. Innaiah Selvaraj, Ex-LIC Development Officer for re- instatement or re-appointment with back wages into the service of LIC is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?

2. ID called out. Heard of maintainability. Having gone through the record and after hearing the petitioner in person and representative of the Respondent / Management,the question that arises to consider at this stage is whether the petitioner / claimant comes under the category of workman.

3. The clear case law on the subject is Chauharya Tripathi & Ors Vs LIC of India &Ors wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Development Officers working in LIC are not workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act.

6670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimant is not a workman, and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the lis.

5. ID is dismissed in for want of jurisdiction and the reference is answered accordingly.

6. The Petitioner / Claimant may file a petition before the competent authority, if so advised.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1343.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री वी. पुगाज़ेंथिरन के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 51/2023) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-73]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1343.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 51/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri V. Pugazhenthiran which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-73]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 51/2023

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 15-04-2026

Shir V. Pugazhenthiran, No.76/34 GKM Colony, 32nd Street, Chennai – 600 082 : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Executive Director,

LIC of India, Marketing / PPD, Central Office, Marketing Department, 3rd Floor, West Wing, Jeevan Bima Marg,Mumbai – 400 021 : 2nd Party / Respondent[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6671

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Party in person

For the Respondent : Representative of the Respondent

Award

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether the demand of Shri V. Pugazhenthiran, Ex-LIC Development Officer for re- instatement or re-appointment with back wages into the service is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?

4. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimant is not a workman, and therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the lis.

5. ID is dismissed in for want of jurisdiction and the reference is answered accordingly.

6. The Petitioner / Claimant may file a petition before the competent authority, if so advised.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1344.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार सेल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और मैग्नेसाइट पट्टाली थोझिलालर संगम के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 31/2023) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26011/04/2023-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1344.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2023) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal6672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to SAIL and Magnesite Pattali Thozhilalar Sangam which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. L-26011/04/2023-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

ID No. 31/2023

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

Date: 16-04-2026

The General Secretary, Salem District Magnesite Pattali Thozhilalar Sangam, Mamangam, Keel Board, Via, SRCL, Salem – 636 302. : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Operating Officer, SAIL, Refractory Coy Ltd., Suramangalam Post, Salem – 636 005 : 2nd Party / Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : None

For the Respondent : M/s S. Karthikesan, Adv

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour& Employment vide its Order No. L-26011/04/2023(IR(M), dated 28.03.2023 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

―Whether demand of Salem District Magnesite Pattali Thozhil Sangam Union vide letter dated 14.12.2019 to the management of SAIL Refractory Company Ltd. (SRCL), Salem for compassionate appointment to the legal dependent of employees, who died in harness while in service based on the settlement dated 17.08.1987 with petitioner and Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (BSCL) is proper, legal and justified?

If yes, whether the settlement dated 17.08.2017 as mentioned above is binding on the present management of SRCL? If yes, to what relief the disputant union is entitled and what directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?‖[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6673 2. On receipt of the above reference dated 28.03.2023 from the appropriate Government, the dispute was registered as ID No. 31/2023 and due notices were issued to both the parties for their appearance fixing the case to 17.07.2023. Neither the Petitioner nor any Counsel / Authorized Representative turned up resulting further adjournments to 28.08.2023, 17.06.2025, 11.08.2025, 09.10.2025, 01.12.2025 and 27.01.2026. The Petitioner did not turn up. It reveals from the body of reference that while the appropriate Govt. sent the reference dated 28.03.2023 to this Tribunal for adjudication, copies of the reference were sent to the Petitioner and all the opposite parties. It is therefore well presumed that both parties must have received the reference. Even then, in the interest of justice, the Petitioner was once again directed to appear and to file claim statement fixing the case to 06.04.2026. 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.

3. In the circumstance it deems proper not to re-list the case for the same purpose to any other date which would be wastage of the valuable time of this Tribunal. The case was reserved for Final Order.

4. In view of the discussion held supra, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no interest to proceed with the case. Thus, the Tribunal is not in a position to adjudicate the dispute as referred by the Appropriate Government, as there exists no Industrial Dispute for adjudication as per the reference.

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

An Award is passed accordingly.

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1345.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

लाइफ इंश्योरेंस कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री वी. पचामुथु के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट

के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 78/2017) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-74]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1345.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 78/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Life Insurance Corporation of India and Shri V. Pachamuthu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-74]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

6674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Date: 02-04-2026

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 78/2017

BETWEEN

Shri V.Pachamuthu, # 200B, Savadi Street, R.P. Pudur Post, Namakkal District - 637 001. : 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its Sr. Divisional Manager, Salem Division, Salem-636 007.

2. Manager (P&IR) Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, Salem Division, Salem-636 007. : 2n Party/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/ Petitioner : M/s. Balan Haridas, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/ Respondents : M/s. C.K.Chandrasekar, Advocates

The Petitioner has filed this claim petition u/s.2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly seeking the following relief:-

To pass an Award holding that order of termination issued by the Respondent/Management dated 13.05.2017 terminating the services of the Petitioner from 15.05.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and liable to be set aside and consequently, direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits with costs.

2. As per the claim statement, the Petitioner is an ex-service man served in Indian Army for 18 years. The Employment Exchange sponsored his name to the Respondent for the post of Assistant. The petitioner was selected and appointed by an order dated 05.07.1997 by the respondent Corporation on consolidated wages of Rs.3127.80 for the period from 09.07.1997 to 06.09.1997. The Petitioner though termed to be temporary Assistant, but he had been discharging the work of permanent Assistant. The Petitioner was expecting absorption and regularisation of service, but the 2nd Respondent by an order dated 13.05.2017 has terminated the services of the Petitioner w.e.f 15.05.2017. No reason has been assigned as to why services of the Petitioner has been terminated. While the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12 calendar months prior to termination. The Petitioner has rendered the service for about twenty years, the Respondent after paying meager wages has failed to absorb the services of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has relied on the case law in LIC Employees Association Vs LIC of India (2015) 2 LLN 1. Hence, the present dispute is raised before this Tribunal.

3. The Respondent in its reply statement stated that the Petitioner's service was temporary. He was disengaged upon attaining 60 years of age, since there was no scope for employment. The Respondent submits that judgement reported in LIC Employees Association Vs LIC of India is not applicable to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was appointed under regulation 8 of the LIC . He worked without demur. He chose to take examination but was unsuccessful . Hence, the claim of the Petitioner is untenable. He was provided with an opportunity for regular absorption by allowing him to take written examination for selection of Assistant on 31.08.2008. But, the Petitioner was unable to utilize that opportunity as he did not come out successful in the written examination.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6675

4. It is also stated that LIC of India (Staff) Regulations were made by the Corporation in the year 1960 and in the year 1981, the LIC Act was amended with the following provisions:-

"1. Abrogated the power of the Corporation to determine the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the

Corporation, by deleting clause (bb) and part of Clause (b) of S.49(1);

2. The Central Govt. was empowered to determine, through rules issued under clause (cc) of section 48(1) the terms

and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation.;

3. The (Staff) Regulations and other provisions relating to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the

Corporation shall be deemed to be rules made by the Central Govt. under Sec 48(2)(cc) (vide the newly inserted sub-

sec (2A) of Section 48 and ;

4. The provisions of, among others, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 or any other law or any agreement, settlement or

award shall have no application in relation to matters in respect of which the central govt. has made rules (vide the

newly inserted sub-sec. 2C of section 48)."

5. The Respondent relied upon the following judgements:-

i) A.V.Nachane Vs Union of India (AIR 1982 SC PP 1126/1137)

ii) Mr. M.Venugopal vs. Divisional Manager LIC, Machilipatnam (AIR 1994 PP 1343-1349).

Witnesses Examined: For the First Party Petitioner : WW1 Mr.V.Pachamuthu For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1 Mr. K.S., Elangovan, Manager (P&IR)

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner's side:

Ex.No.	Date	Description
Ex.W1	05.07.1997	Copy of appointment of the Petitioner
Ex.W2	17.04.2008	Copy of transfer order
Ex.W3	13.05.2017	Copy of order of termination
Ex.W4	-	Statement of bank account of the Petitioner reflecting monthly salary.
Ex.W5 -		Ex.serviceman ID Card

Documents Marked:

On behalf of Respondent/Management

Ex.No.	Date	Description
Ex.M 1	13.05.2017	Letter of Salem Div.Office regarding cessation of service of the Petitioner
Ex.M 2	-	List of candidates for whom hall tickets were sent
Ex.M3	-	LIC of India (Employment of Temporary staff ) Instructions, 1993 - Extract
Ex.M4	-	LIC of India (Staff) Regulations , 1960-Extract.

6. The Petitioner has submitted proof of affidavit in support of his claim and adduced oral evidence as WW1 and documents filed by him were marked as Ex.W1 to W5. The Respondent has also filed its proof of affidavit and6676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Shri K.S.Elangovan, Manager was examined as MW1 and documents on behalf of Respondent were marked as Ex.M1 to Ex.M4.

7. The first point that arises for determination is whether the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mr. A.V.Nachane Vs Union of India (AIR 1982 SC PP 1126) and Mr. M.Venugopal vs. Divisional Manager LIC, Machilipatnam (AIR 1994 SC PP 1343) is applicable to the present case on hand and consequently, the Petitioner is debarred to raise an industrial dispute?

8. On perusal of the above mentioned judgements, it appears that judgements do not lay down blanket rule that Petitioner is always debarred from raising an Industrial dispute after these two judgements. These two judgements recognizes limited solution of right to raise an Industrial Dispute in specific circumstances. In the case of Mr. A.V.Nachane Vs Union of India (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the amendments of LIC of India Act which allowed service conditions to be governed by statutory rules overriding the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Those rules which were approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court operates notwithstanding the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, if the matter is governed by overriding statutory rules, then usually, the industrial dispute is barred. But, if the matter is not governed by such rules, then , the industrial dispute is allowable.

9. Now, I have to examine whether the case of the Petitioner is governed under the amended Rules?. For this, I have to ascertain the exact subject of the dispute. The Rules mentioned above in para No.4 do not have overriding effect of the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which runs as under:-

"25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.

- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) the workman has been given one month 's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days

'average pay [for every completed year of service] (w.e.f. 19.12.1964).] or any part thereof in excess of six months;

and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [or such authority as may be specified

by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette."

10. Thus, section 25F of the Act deals with conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman and mandated that employer cannot retrench the workman, unless follow/comply with the mandatory steps provided under section 25F, which are as under:-

i) One month notice (or wages in lieu thereof);

ii) Retrenchment compensation i.e, equal to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months and this amount must be paid at the time of retrenchment.

11. Admittedly, the mandate provided under the section 25F was not followed by the Respondent/Management. Hence, the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner is maintainable.

12. The second point that arises for determination is whether the Petitioner has worked as workman for more than 240 days continuously in a year?

13. The answer to the question emerges from the documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner. Ex.W1 is copy of appointment order issued by Respondent/Management to the Petitioner dated 05.07.1997. Ex.W2 suggests that Petitioner was transferred on 07.04.2008. Ex.W4 is the copy of statement of bank account of the Petitioner reflecting monthly salary credited into his account. On perusal of the record, it appears that Petitioner was paid monthly salary regularly for several years and his service was terminated by letter dated 13.05.2017. From the date of entry into service, the Petitioner has received salary upto 15.05.2017 continuously without any interruption. Hence, this fact is established that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year.

14. The third point that arises for determination is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled to?

15. As per discussion above, the Respondent/Management LIC Corporation had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions u/s.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. i.e., No notice was issued to the Petitioner; no wages was paid in lieu of notice as well as compensation equal to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Thus, the retrenchment becomes illegal, void and ab initio.

It is worth to mention that provisions of section 25F of the Act are mandatory and not only procedural and its violation converts into result of reinstatement. But, in the present case on hand, the Petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation and therefore, there is no occasion to pass an order of reinstatement. Therefore, instead of[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6677 reinstatement, it is appropriate to pass an order to pay one month wages in lieu of notice; compensation i.e, equal to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months.

AWARD

In view of the foregoing discussion, the claim petition filed by the Petitioner is liable to be allowed with the following directions to the Respondent/Management :-

i) To pay the Petitioner one month wages in lieu of notice;

ii) Retrenchment compensation i.e, equal to 15 days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months.

iii) Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as lumpsum compensation for illegal retrenchment.

All these above mentioned amounts shall be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondent/Management within a period of two months after publication of Award and if the Respondent fails to pay these amounts within the prescribed period, then interest @ 6% per annum will be payable from the date of retrenchment of the workman from service till the date of actual payment. No costs. Ordered accordingly.

Record be consigned to the record room.

Place : Chennai SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer Date : 02.04.2026

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1346.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री प्रीतम सिह के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 125/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-75]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1346.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 125/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Shri Pritam Singh which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-75]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh

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

ID No.125/2024 Registered on:-01.06.2021

Pritam Singh S/o Sh. Khjan Singh R/o House No.29, AmanVihar Ambala Distt. Ambala 133021.

-------- Workman Versus

1. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G T Road, Ambala Cantt (Principal Employer).

2nd address6678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Regd Office G-9, Ali Yavarjang Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051

2. M/s Yudhvir Singh Jamwal Security Agency, F-103, PalamVyapar Kendra, Pala Vihar, Gurgoan (Haryana)

3. M/s BSS Security Agency C/o M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited G.T. Road, Ambala Cantt.

Distt. Ambala (HR) 133001

----Respondents Present:- Sh. Tarun Malhotra, AR for workman.

Sh. SC Gupta & Ms. Himani Sharma along withSh. Ashish

Kapoor, AR for Respondent No.1. Sh. Anish Babbar, AR for Respondent No.2 Sh. Parveen Kumar, AR for Respondent No.3

AWARD :16.04.2026

1. The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act) against his termination dated 01.06.2020 with a prayer to reinstate him in service along with all consequential benefits.

2. Today, AR of workman made a statement that he withdraws his present Industrial Dispute. AR for respondent No.1, 2 and 3 also made a statement that they have no objection in case the workman withdraws his present industrial dispute. Their statements are recorded separately.

3. In view of the statement of AR for workman as well as the statements of AR for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'. Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the present industrial dispute.

4. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding-cum-Link Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1347.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री कृ ष्णपाल के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 126/2024) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[फा. सं. जेड-16025/04/2026-आईआर(एम)-76]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1347.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 126/2024) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Shri Krishanpal which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[F. No. Z-16025/04/2026-IR(M)-76]

SALONI, Dy. Director[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6679

ANNEXURE

In the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh

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

ID No.126/2024 Registered on:-01.06.2021

Krishanpal S/o Sh. Jyoti Singh R/o House No.31, Shiva Ji Park, Village Jandli, Ambala City, Distt. Ambala (HR) 134003.

-------- Workman Versus

4. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G T Road, Ambala Cantt (Principal Employer). 2nd address

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Regd Office G-9, Ali Yavarjang Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051

5. M/s Yudhvir Singh Jamwal Security Agency, F-103, PalamVyapar Kendra, Pala Vihar, Gurgoan (Haryana)

6. M/s BSS Security Agency C/o M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited G.T. Road, Ambala Cantt. Distt. Ambala (HR) 133001

----Respondents

Present:- Sh. Tarun Malhotra, AR for workman.

Sh. SC Gupta & Ms. Himani Sharma along withSh. Ashish

Kapoor, AR for Respondent No.1. Sh. Anish Babbar, AR for Respondent No.2 Sh. Parveen Kumar, AR for Respondent No.3

AWARD :16.04.2026

5. The present industrial dispute has been filed by the workman under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act) against his termination dated 01.06.2020 with a prayer to reinstate him in service along with all consequential benefits.

6. Today, AR of workman made a statement that he withdraws his present Industrial Dispute. AR for respondent No.1, 2 and 3 also made a statement that they have no objection in case the workman withdraws his present industrial dispute. Their statements are recorded separately.

7. In view of the statement of AR for workman as well as the statements of AR for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a 'No Claim Award'.

Accordingly, 'No Claim Award' is passed in the present industrial dispute.

8. Let copy of this award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for publication.

KAMAL KANT, Presiding-cum-Link Officer6680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1348.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार

स्टील अथॉरिटी ऑफ़ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री प्रभु नाथ के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 34/2012) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-43012/8/2011-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1348.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Shri Prabhu Nath which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[F. No. L-43012/8/2011-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID Case No. 34 of 2012

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)

Shri Prabhu Nath, S/o Shri Gaya Prasad, 739- Harijan Basti, Harijendar Nagar, Shiv Katra, Kanpur. .

…………………….Workman Vs. The Branch Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., 16/98- LIC Building, M.G. Marg, Kanpur.

……………………..Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)

As per reference letter dated 04/05/2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') as per Notification No. L-43012/8/2011 (IR(B-M) dt. 04.05.2012. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., in not giving post and scale of pay

accordance to nature of job and in terminating the services of Shri Prabhu Nath S/o Shri Gaya Prasad w.e.f.

9.6.1997, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"

Claimant/workman Shri Prabhu Nath (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:

1. The claimant/worker was appointed to the post of Peon/Messenger in the defendant establishment in the year 1983.

2. The claimant/worker's work was of a permanent nature, but the employer did not provide him with the salary or designation commensurate with the nature of his work. When the plaintiff worker demanded a designation and salary scale in accordance with the nature of his work, the employer became displeased and suddenly terminated his services on June 9, 1997.

3. The claimant/worker had been continuously employed from 1983 to June 8, 1997, without an interruption.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6681

4. The employers did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while terminating the plaintiff worker's services, as the claimant was neither given notice nor severance pay, nor any notice pay before the termination of his services.

5. The respondent employers, being aggrieved by the award of the Hon'ble Labour Court, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, filed Writ Petition No. 31495/2010, Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, in the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad. In its judgment dated February 21, 2011, the Hon'ble High Court held that the appropriate government in relation to the disputes of Steel Authority of India is the Central Government. Therefore, the reference issued by the Hon'ble Labour Court and the award passed thereon by the Hon'ble Labour Court No. 3, Kanpur, were accordingly set aside. beyond its jurisdiction and consequently not sustainable, and were accordingly set aside.

6. Based on the above facts, the termination of the claimant worker's service is unjust and illegal. Therefore, the claimant worker is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages and other admissible benefits for the entire period of unemployment.

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

1. The reasons / recital on the basis of which the Central Government has formed it's opinion of existence of Industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/s. Swadeshi Cotton Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J. Page No. 3891.

2. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it miserably failed to consider the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi and others reported in 2006(109) F.L.R. 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and others V/s Vartak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) F.L.R. 500, wherein it has been categorically held that daily wagers, casual and contract Labours have no lien in the employment in public sectors.

3. Neither the services of applicant have been prop dismissed, retrenched, terminated nor has he been deprived from work allegedly from 9.6.1997 in any manner whatsoever.

4. No cause of action had accrued to the applicant on (b) establishme 9.6.97 nor on any other date in any manner whatsoever.

5. The applicant had never been appointed with opposite party establishment in any capacity in any manner import whatsoever, as such the question of termination of his services does not arise.

6. He had never been appointed with Opposite Party in any capacity at any point of time, neither in the year 1983, as alleged. The Opposite Party is a Government of India company, and no post of peon exists in it, as alleged. It is pertinent to mention here that recruitment to posts in the company is on the basis of laid down procedures and statutory rules after holding requisite tests and interviews. The applicant has never undergone any of the recruitment procedures, thus proving that he was never recruited. Had he been recruited, he would have been issued appointment letter and his name would have figured in the official records of attendance maintained by the Opposite Party establishment. He would also have been issued several other important documents such as identity card, pay slip and leave book by the Opposite Party establishment.

7. It is reiterated that he had Jo Lever been in the employment of Opposite Party, as such the provisions of Sec. 25F Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are neither attracted, nor is he entitled to benefits there under. It is further denied that other individuals even lower in post than the applicant have been working in the establishment of Opposite Party, therefore, the provisions of sec 25G of ments of pars 12 which are a matter of the ID Act are also not attracted.

8. Furthermore, recruitment on regular posts in the company is on the basis of laid down procedure, various statutory rules including that of reservation for the posts of SC/ST (OBC and PWD may not have been applicable at the relevant time) and after requisite tests and interviews. Successful candidates are issued appointment letters for respective posts and given pay scales accordingly, besides their names are enrolled on the attendance register, the employees of the opposite party are issued identity cards, pay slips, leave book etc. and their salaries are credited in their respective bank accounts.

9. Irrespective of regular and permanent work there is casual and intermittent work of loading unloading and staking of iron and steel goods in Warehouses of Opposite Party which is entrusted to the handling contractors by inviting tenders, and contractors offering lowest bid are allotted the contract of loading unloading and staking through a written agreement for a specified period. The handling contractors deploy their own contract labours to full fill the contractual obligations and the Opposite Party pays directly to such Handling Contractor according to bills raised by him in terms of agreement.

6682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

After filing of above written statement, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement.

After that opposite party filed some documents which is read as under:

1. Reference order dated 06.02.1998 of State Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh, referring industrial dispute between Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Sales Branch), Kanpur and Engineering Udyog Mazdoor Sabha, Kanpur in respect of Sarva Sri Prabhu Nath and Rajbeer.

2. Registration and Incorporation Certificate of Steel Authority of India Ltd.

3. Format of Joining report submitted by employee appointed for the post Assistant.

4. Format of Appointment letter issued for the post Messenger by SAIL.

5. Format of joining report submitted by employees appointed by the post of Messenger.

6. Record of Attendance for the period July 1995 to December 1995 of non executive employees of Branch Sales Office, SAIL, Mall Road Kanpur.

7. Order dated 21.02.2011 passed by Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 31495 of 2010 preferred against Award passed by Labour Court (III) U.P., Kanpur in Adj. Case No. 15/2006.

8. Plaint of Industrial Dispute raised by Sri Prabhu Nath before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)18.3.2011/21.3.2011, registered as I.D. K-7(52)2011/E.1.

9. Notice issued by RLC( C) in I.D. No. K-7(52)2011/E.1.

10. Objections and reply dated 20.07.2011 submitted on behalf of SAIL in I.D. No. K-7(52)2011/E.1.

11. Rejoinder dated 8.9.2011 of Sri Prabhu Nath submitted in I.D. No. K-7(52)2011/E.1.

During the trial applicant Prabhu Nath died.

By way of order dated 14.09.2022 his wife Pushpa Devi is corporated against him and the case is further fixed for evidence of the claimant side.

As per claim statement, claimant requested that he was appointed in 1983 as Peon/messenger by O.P. and his nature of work is permanent but they were never given to him as per nature, pay and name and suddenly his services was terminated on date 09.06.1997. He had worked from 1983 to 08.06.1997 continuous without any break.

In reply of that opposite party, in our written statement is stated that Applicant has never appointed with opposite party establishment in any capacity in any manner whatsoever, as such the question of his services does not arise.

Further said, in our additional statement in para 18, respective of regular and permanent work there is casual and intermittent work of loading and unloading In para 20 stated that applicant Prabhu Nath had been offered in the post of complete such emergent casual and intermittent unskilled work arises in exigencies from time to time on initially and mutually agreed amount and when he had been available and paid remuneration through contingent fund according the bills raised by him for such work.

Now, the question is whether the applicant is appointed in opposite party organisation for above question the evidence of the parties is important.

The applicant never filled any documentary evidence he had given oral evidence only and examine himself.

In his chief examination, he supported our claim statement. Chief examination stated that I was employed at the respondent establishment as a peon/messenger since 1983. Another employee, who worked as a cleaner, was also hired in 1983. We were both terminated from our jobs on June 9, 1997. We were dismissed verbally. Our services were terminated by Mr. Sanjeev Saurabh, the Branch Manager, through a verbal order. We had worked continuously from 1983 to June 6, 1997. We received our salaries directly from the company. The company prepared our salary slips, and we received our wages through them. In cross examination stated no application was submitted for employment with the department. The department hired us without any formal process. We did not receive any appointment letter from the department. But I was given a character certificate. We received our salary through salary vouchers. I don't know if all employees were paid by check by the establishment, but we were paid in cash. All employees signed the attendance register maintained by the defendant establishment, but a separate register was maintained for us, which has been submitted to the court. Document number A/1 was given to me by the branch manager. Initially, I went to the RLC with this matter, where they said it was a state issue. Then I went to the Labour Court in the state.

In claim statement and rejoinder applicant stated that he had worked from 1983 to 08.06.1997 without any break but he had never given any documentary evidence that proved he had worked for above period.

As per ID Act section 25 B is read as under:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6683

25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be

in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service

accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on

account of sickness or authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one

year or six months, he shall be deemed be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twel calendar months preceding the

date with reference to whis calculation is to be made. has actually worked under the employe for

not less than-

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workmar employed below ground in a

mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

It is mandatory that worker has worked 240 days as per provision because applicant has not given any documentary evidence and against that opposite party said that he had offered in pass to complete such emergent casual and some work not appointed in his oral evidence claimant said as quoted above he never applied for any employment, he kept as by department, no any appointment letter has been given, his salary was given by way of vouchers, he paid cash.

The applicant had been offered in past to complete such emergent casual and intermittent unskilled works arisen on exigencies from time to time on initially on mutually agreed amount, as and when he had been available and paid remunerations through contingent fund according to bills raised by him for such work.

After showing of all evidence, it is clear no appointment letter was given to him, he paid cash but he had not given any documentary evidence that he had worked as employee in opposite party organisation or he had worked in preview of section 25 B.

In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗Nil' award.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 03.02.2026

Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.). Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1349.— औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार स्टील अथॉरिटी ऑफ़ इंडिया लिमिटेड; मेसर्स ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री राम सेवक के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 33/2015) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25 .06. 2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26012/15/2015-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1349.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 33/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Ram Sevak which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[F. No. L-26012/15/2015-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director6684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

ID Case No. 33 of 2015

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)

Shri Ram Sevak S/o Late Vipati, C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.

…………………….Workman

Vs.

1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208001.

2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.

3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).

……………………..Management

JUDGMENT

(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)

As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') as per Notification No. L-26012/15/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in

terminating the services of Sh. Ram Sevak S/o Late Vipati w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?"

Claimant/workman Shri Ram Sevak (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:

1. The applicant was continuously employed as a gunman and security guard from 2009 until the morning of December 31, 2013, under the direction of the employers. However, his services were terminated on the evening of December 31, 2013, through a verbal order.

2. The third party was authorized to conduct inspections and confirmations to ensure compliance with the directions of the first and second respondents, and the security work was carried out and is still being performed.

3. The applicant was employed informally from September 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013. The third party was also appointed through the first and second parties, and this appointment resulted in a violation of the petitioner's rights under the Labour Act, 1947. The applicant was deprived of his earned wages, including overtime pay, which was not paid according to the rules. This was also protested by the petitioner.

4. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid the amount due to him as per the rules. Two types of documents were used for obtaining signatures. If any objection was raised, the employee was dismissed and deprived of his service, which constitutes a violation of the rights granted under the Education Act of 1947 and 1948. This persistent and unwavering harassment is unjust and illegal.

5. It is further submitted that the employer/defendant parties did not give the applicant any opportunity to complain throughout his entire period of service, nor were any charges levelled against him. Despite this, his dismissal and deprivation of service is unjust and illegal.

6. The service of applicant in this case, which was terminated on 31-12-2013, is unjust and illegal. No notice pay or compensation was given. The service was terminated verbally, even though the petitioner is entitled to all due payments.

7. It is requested that an order be passed directing the restoration of service continuity under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and awarding compensation for the period of unemployment, severance pay, and other previously unpaid dues, including bonuses.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6685

Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:

1. It is submitted that there never was and continues to be no employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 -Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant. However, contrary to this AR fact, and even before adjudication on merits can be concluded on whether there exists any employee-employer relationship or not, the order dated 19.6.2015 has erroneously declared the applicant to be a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. The impugned order of reference dated 19.6.2015 is therefore bad in law, biased, arbitrary, and thus liable to be quashed.

2. The words used in the order of reference dated 19.6.2015 state that the Govt. is of the opinion about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen. In the absence of any finding on facts, the Govt has already formed an opinion declaring the Applicant to be a workman of the Opposite Party No 1 & 2. False presumptions have thus been drawn in the order dated 19.6.2015, thereby making it liable to be quashed being based on conjectures and assumptions. Whereas, the fact is that there never was/ nor is any employee-employer relationship between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant.

3. The reference order dated 19.6.2015 states about existence of an Industrial dispute between the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd and its workmen, which renders the impugned reference order ambiguous, self- contradictory and evasive.

4. The reasons on the basis of which the Central Government has formed its opinion about existence of industrial dispute is conspicuously missing in the impugned reference order dated 19.6.2015, thereby rendering it liable to be quashed.

5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.

6. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently in as much that it has miserably failed to consider the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between Secretary, State of Karnataka v/s Uma Devi reported in 2006 (109) FLR 826, and subsequently in another case between Union of India and others v/s Varteak Labour Union reported in 2011(129) FLR 500, wherein it has been categorically held that daily wagers, casual and contract labourers have no lien in the employment in public sectors.

7. The Schedule contained in the reference order dated 19.6.2015 shows that a final finding has already been reached about the applicant working with the establishment of O.P. No. 1 & 2 and that his services have been terminated by it. Such a final finding is incorrect and against the law, since it has been reached much before this Tribunal has even heard the alleged claim of the applicant and before hearing the response of the opposite parties. Thus the Schedule in the order dated 19.6.2015 be rejected, and the reference order itself is liable to be rejected.

8. The Central Government has not applied it's mind diligently as it has not considered the factual submissions made by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 during conciliation proceedings, that no employee-employer relationship ever existed between the Opposite Party No 1 & 2 Steel Authority of India Ltd and the Applicant, but has on the contrary referred the matter to this Tribunal, and in a very casual manner.

9. The allegations in para 1 being concocted, misleading, misdirected and contrary to facts, are thus emphatically denied. No documents have been enclosed by the applicant to prove the allegations; the applicant is thus put to strict proof of his allegations. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 or 2 from 2009 to 31.12.2013, as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by the O.P. No. 1 or 2 at any point of time whatsoever. The O.P. No 3, Sh HS Boparai of M/S Onkar Enterprises, 736 sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.8.2009 between him and O.P. No 1 and 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance. Accordingly, it is essential and in the interest of justice that the opp. Party No.3 be directed to file its response.

10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29, Noida.

11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.

Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:

(i) The Opposite Party No. 3 M/s. Onkar Enterprises is a contractor and is not an employer as defined in Section 2(g) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Therefore the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 is not applicable upon the Opposite party No. 3. As such the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 3. M/s. Onkar Enterprises.

6686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(ii) Contractor is not an Industry as defined in section 2 (J) of the Industrial Disputes act 1947. Therefore the reference is illegal and without jurisdiction so far it relates to Opposite Party No. 3 as such is liable to be rejected against O.P. No. 03.

(iii) The contract work awarded to the Opposite Party No. 03 was time bound. It was fully known to the applicant. Therefore the applicant has no locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagements as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.

(iv) No cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.

(v) The applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of Respondent No. 01 and 02 and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the respondent no. 01 and 02. Therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the Respondent No. 03 as the contract has come to an end by afflux of time.

(vi) The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.

(vii) The content of Para No. 01 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not admitted. In reply it is submitted that the answering defendant/Party No. 3 was awarded the contract for 2 yrs w.e.f. 01 Sep 2009 to 31 Aug 2011. It was renewed from 01 Sep 2011 to 31 Aug 2013. Since the new contract was not finalized and Party No. 03 contracts was extended by one month more from 01 Sep, to 30 Sep 2013. It is further submitted that no cause of action arised on 31.12.2013 as the extended period of contract ended on 30.09.2013. It is submitted that after 30.09.2013 there was no contract in favour of respondent no. 03 contractor nor respondent no. 03 engaged any labour after 30.09.2013. In view of above submissions the reference order is illegal and without jurisdiction as such is liable to be rejected.

(viii) The content of Para No. 02 of the statement of claim is wrong, baseless and misconceive hence not admitted. The applicant is put to strict proof of his contention. In reply is submitted that the work came to an automatic end on 30.09.2013 by afflux of time as the contract work was time bound.

After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 1 &2, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:

(i) The statements in paragraphs II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII of the preliminary objections in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable to the applicant. Opposite party No. 1 employed Opposite party No. 2 to carry out the work, and the plaintiff was made to work under their control and direction. Therefore, Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers of the applicant and are responsible in this dispute. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, after examining all the facts, statements, and records of the parties, has issued a reference order, which is proper and legal. The judgments cited by the defendants are not applicable to this dispute. The reference order has been sent to the Hon'ble Court for adjudication. The reference order cannot be reviewed by the Hon'ble Court.

(ii) The statements in sub-paragraphs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of paragraph 2 under the legal submissions in the written statement are false, baseless, and flawed, and therefore unacceptable. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the employers who appointed the applicant, and the service of applicant were utilized by opposite party No. 3 under their control and direction. Therefore, opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers and are responsible.

(iii) The statements in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the written statement are false, misleading, and contrary to the truth, and therefore unacceptable. The applicant was made to work by opposite party No. 1 and 2 under their control, direction, and premises through opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 are the principal employers; therefore, the entire responsibility for the dispute rests with opposite party No. 1 and 2.

(iv) The statements made in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the written statement are baseless, unfounded, and misleading, and therefore not acceptable. The work to be performed by the applicant is of a continuous nature and cannot be contracted out. For this reason, respondent No. 1 and 2 are solely responsible for the applicant's claim. The applicant reiterates and emphasizes the statements made in paragraphs 11 through 14 of the claim statement.

(v) The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.

After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6687

(i) The Application filed by opposite party no. 3 dated 30-06-2017 is time-barred. According to the Act, the application should have been filed within 35 days of the ex-parte order. However, the application has been filed eight months later, and is liable to be dismissed. Orders for dismissal should be given.

(ii) The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(iii) The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Please dismiss it.

(iv) No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3 for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.

(v) The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are false, misleading, and baseless and are not valid. Because the respondent's application does not state when, on what date, and by whom they were informed of the dispute, it is therefore unreliable.

(vi) The paragraphs of the written statement filed by opposite party no. 3 for restoration are false and baseless and cannot be accepted.

After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:

1. Photocopy of the consultation order dated 30.12.2013 from the Assistant Labour Commissioner's office.

2. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2009.

3. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2010.

4. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2010.

5. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for September 2011.

6. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for December 2011.

7. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2012.

8. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for March 2012.

9. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for November 2012.

10. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for January 2013.

11. Photocopy of the payment details and attendance register for May 2013.

12. Photocopy of the list of security guards who received three months' payment (October, November, December 2013) from the Warehouse Management, related to the notice dated 21.01.2014.

13. Photocopy of the notice dated 05.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding pressure to accept lower wages and a settlement related to ESI/PF.

14. Photocopy of the notice dated 11.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding delayed payment.

15. Photocopy of the notice dated 13.07.2013 from Omkar Enterprises' supervisor, Tansen, regarding deposit of funds.

In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 & 2 filed documents which are read as under:

(i) Certificate of Registration under sub sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of The Contact Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

(ii) Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and M/s Onkar Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida, G.B. Nagar (U.P.)

(iii) Letter dated 24.8.2011 extending the contract between Steel Authority of India Ltd., and Onkar Enterprises 736, Sector 29, Noida G.B. Nagar.

(iv) Renewed up to date Certificate of Registration under Sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 7 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd.

(v) Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Warehouse Manager to LEO.

(vi) Bills submitted by Onkar Enterprise from Oct. 2012 to Sep. 2013 to SAIL Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur.

6688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As per reference the main question is whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/ M/s. Onkar enterprises, Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Sevak S/o Late Vipati w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair & legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?

In claim statement claimant is requested that he was an employee from 2009 to 31.12.2013 without any break but from an oral order his services were terminated 31.12.2013. He was continuously in work from September, 2009 to 31.12.2013 that is against the labour Act, 1947, his payment was not done as per law, his nature of job is permanent as this reason his services cannot be terminated and after termination new appointment has been done by opposite party that is illegal and unfair.

As per written statement of opposite party number 1 & 2, that there was never and continuous to be no employee- employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The opposite party number 3 Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 & 2 concerning firefighting/surveillance.

The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 & 2 from September, 2009 to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 & 2 at any point of time.

The Opposite party number 3 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.

Opposite party number 3 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 3 was time bound, it is fully known to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.

Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 & 2 and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1 & 2.

Therefore applicant is not entitled to any relief and also requested that opposite party number 3 was awarded the contract from two years, first is 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2011 and it was renewed from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2013. Since the new contract was not finalized and the contract was only extended by one month more from 01 September to 30.09.2013. Hence no cause of action arises on 31.12.2013, as the extended period of contact is ended on 30.09.2013. After 30.09.2013, there was no contract in favour of opposite party number 3, contractor/opposite party number 3 is engaged any labour after 30.09.2013.

The main question is in this reference that the applicant is an employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 and his termination of services on dated 31.12.2013 is just fair and legal.

As per question of employee of the applicant of opposite party number 1 and 2 no any oral evidence is filed by the applicant.

Opposite party number 1 and 2 never engaged him as an employee. Opposite party number 1 and 2 has filled documentary evidence as shown above, after showing those papers it is established and proved that applicant is never work as employee in organisation of opposite party number 1 and 2.

Now the question arises, how the applicant works in the organisation of opposite party numbers 1 and 2. The opposite party number 3 in our written statement stated as mentioned above, he was contractor of the said period and he engaged to applicant in those periods for some works but the contract was not extended form 30.09.2013. Hence there is no any question of termination of the applicant on 30.12.2013 because the contract was not extended after 30.09.2013.

Applicant was filled some documentary evidence. After the perusal of those documents, in September, 2009 he worked and after that in the year of 2009 he never worked because salary sheet and attendance register is submitted only in September 2009. In year 2010, applicant is worked in January, 2010 because applicant is also filed salary sheet and attendance register of January, 2010 and December, 2010. In year 2011 applicant worked in September, 2011 and December, 2011 because salary sheet and attendance register is filed of above month. In year 2012 applicant is worked in January 2012, March 2012, November 2012 and December 2012 because he is filed salary sheet and attendance register and in 2013 he worked in January 2013, May 2013 only.

As per provision of section 25 B of the ID Act, 1947 as follows:

25-B. Definition of continuous service-For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) a workmen shall be said to be in

continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which may be interrupted on account of sickness or

authorised leave of which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6689

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the mean of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months,

he shall be deemed be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made. has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

As per above provision he never worked in continuous 240 days as given in section 25 B of the said Act. After above discussion and averment applicant is failed to prove as stated in his claim statement that he is employee of opposite party number 1 and 2 as principal employer, he had not given any oral evidence. By way of documentary evidence it is not proved that he is employee of as said in provision of industrial dispute Act.

In view of the foregoing discussion and in the given circumstance the reference stands disposed of as of ‗NIL' award.

Reference is answered accordingly.

Parties are left to bear their respective costs.

Date: 03.02.2026

Shri RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, H.J.S. (Retd.), Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2026

का.आ. 1350.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, के न्द्रीय सरकार स्टील अथॉरिटी ऑफ़ इंडिया लिमिटेड; मेसर्स ओंकार एंटरप्राइजेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और श्री दुली चंद के बीच अनुबंध में निदिष्ट के न्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर, पंचाट (रिफरेन्स न.- 34/2015) को जैसा कि अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकाशित करती है जो के न्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25.06.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-26012/14/2015-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उप निदेशक

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2026

S.O. 1350.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Steel Authority of India Ltd; M/s Onkar Enterprises and Shri Duli Chand which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 25.06.2026.

[F. No. L-26012/14/2015-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

ID Case No. 34 of 2015

Present Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, H.J.S. (Retd.)

Shri Duli Chand S/o Late Parmu Lal, C/O Shri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Post- Rawatpur, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208019.

…………………….Workman

Vs.

1. The Chief Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., H.No. 16/98, LIC Building, Mall Road, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208001.

6690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. The Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Stock Yard, Panki, Kanpur (U.P.)- 208020.

3. Col. H.S. Boparai, Proprietor, M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736, Sector- 29, Noida (U.P.).

……………………..Management

(JUDGMENT)

(Passed on this 3rd day of February, 2026)

As per reference letter dated 19/06/2015 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference has been made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') as per Notification No. L-26012/14/2015 (IR(M) dt. 19.06.2015. The dispute under reference relates to:

" Whether the action of the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kanpur/M/s. Onkar enterprises,

Noida in terminating the services of Sh. Duli Chand S/o Late Parmu Lal w.e.f. 31.12.2013 is just, fair &

legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Claimant/workman Shri Duli Chand (hereinafter stated as the claimant) has filed the statement of claim with averments which may be concisely stated as hereunder:

Respondent No. 1 and 2 had submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6691

5. The said order is inconsistent to the finding of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case between M/S Swadeshi Cotton Mills and Industrial Tribunal II reported in (1950-67) S.C.L.J page No.3891.

10. The applicant was the worker of the O.P. No. 3, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector- 29, Noida.

11. The applicant is not entitled to any relief in the present reference.

Respondent No. 3 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:

6692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 4, 2026/ ASHADHA 13, 1948 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(vi) The present reference under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is bad and not maintainable under the law and on fact and is liable to be dismissed.

(v) The remaining statements have been written to support false facts and are therefore unacceptable.

After filing of above written statement filed by opposite party no. 3, rejoinder is also filed by applicant. In rejoinder, the applicant denied the averments of the written statement are stated as:

(ii) The reason for the delay in reinstatement has not been stated in the application submitted by the respondent, and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

(iii) The application for reinstatement has not been submitted on affidavit, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Please dismiss it.

(iv) No comment should be made on paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the written statement of opposite party no. 3 for reinstatement. The respondent should verify his or her statements.

[भाग II—खण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 4, 2026/ आषाढ 13, 1948 6693