5349 GI/2026

(6927)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 27]

नई दिल् ली, िुलाई 12—िुलाई 18, 2026, िजनवार/ आषाढ 21—आषाढ 27, 1948

No. 27]

NEW DELHI, JULY 12—JULY 18, 2026, SATURDAY/ ASHADHA 21–– ASHADHA 27, 1948

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

गृि मंत्रालय

(रािभाषा जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 8 िून, 2026

का.आ. 1401.—केन्र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलये प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, उत्तर पूवी क्षेत्र जवकास मंत्रालय को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 12022/01/2023-रा.भा. (का.2)]

रामनरेि िमाा, जनिेिक (कायाान्वयन)

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-22082026-275565

CG-DL-W-22082026-275565

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-22082026-275565

CG-DL-W-22082026-275565

6928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

(Department of Official Language)

New Delhi, the 8th June, 2026

S.O. 1401.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (use for official

purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies Ministry of Development of

North Eastern Region.

[F. No. 12022/01/2023-O.L. (Imp.2)]

RAM NARESH SHARMA, Director (Impl.)

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.िी. प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1402.—राजनविक और कोंसुलीि अविकारी (शपथ एिं फीस) के अविवनिम, 1948 की िारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में िैिावनक आदेश।

एतद्द्वारा, केंद्र सरकार भारतीि उच्चािोग, लंदन में श्री दक्ष बंसल, सहािक अनुभाग अविकारी, को जुलाई 10,

2026 से सहािक कांसुलर अविकारी के रूप में कांसुलर सेिाओं का वनिवहन करने के वलए अविकृत करती है।

[फा. सं. टी. 4330/01/2026(11)]

तरुण कुमार, अवर सजचव (सीपीिी-II)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 10th July, 2026

S.O. 1402.—Statutory Order in pursuance of clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and

Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri

Daksh Bansal, Assistant Section Officer, in the High Commission of India, London as Assistant Consular

Officer to perform Consular services with effect from July 10, 2026.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2026 (11)]

TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy.(CPV-II)

संचार मंत्रालय

(डाक जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 25 नवंबर, 2025

का.आ. 1403.—केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 (यथा

संिोजित 1987) के जनयम 10 के उप जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, डाक जवभाग के जनम् नजलजखत अिीनस्ट् थ कायाालय, जिसके

80 प्रजतित से अजिक अजिकाररयों/कमाचाररयों ने जिन् िी का कायासािक ज्ञान प्राप् त कर जलया िै, को एतिद्वारा अजिसूजचत

करती िै:-

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2024-रा.भा.]

डॉ. प्रिीप कुमार, उप मिाजनिेिक(प्रजिक्षण /रा.भा.)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6929

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

New Delhi, the 25th November, 2025

S.O. 1403.—In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for official

Purposes of the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby notifies

following Sub-ordinate office of the Department of Posts, where more than 80% Officers/Officials have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

[F. No. E-11017-1/2024-OL]

Dr. PRADEEP KUMAR, Dy. Director General(Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1404.—केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 (यथा

करती िै:-

अिीक्षक डाकघर का कायाालय,

मंिसौर संभाग,

मंिसौर – 458001

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

डॉ. प्रिीप कुमार, उप मिाजनिेिक(प्रजिक्षण /रा.भा.)

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2026

S.O. 1404.—In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for

official Purposes of the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby

notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the Department of Posts, where more than 80%

Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices,

Mandsaur Division,

Mandsaur - 458001

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Dr. PRADEEP KUMAR, Dy. Director General(Training/OL)

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1405.— केन् र सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम 1976 (यथा

करती िै:-

कायाालय जनिेिक लेखा (डाक),

छत्तीसगढ़ सकाल, रायपुर- 492001

[फा. सं. ई-11017-1/2026-रा.भा.]

डॉ. प्रिीप कुमार, उप मिाजनिेिक(प्रजिक्षण /रा.भा.)

6930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 8th July, 2026

S.O. 1405.—In Pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for

official Purposes of the Union) Rules 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government hereby

notifies following Sub-ordinate office of the Department of Posts, where more than 80%

Officers/Officials have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi:-

Office of the Director of Accounts,

Chhattisgarh Circle, Raipur- 492001

[F. No. E-11017-1/2026-OL]

Dr. PRADEEP KUMAR, Dy. Director General(Training/OL)

पेरोजलयम और प्राकृजतक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1406.— पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अजिग्रिण) अजिजनयम

1962 (1962 का 50), (इसके बाि उक्त अजिजनयम किा िाएगा) की िारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में, केंर सरकार

उक्त अजिजनयम के अिीन जनम्न ताजलका के कॉलम (2) में उजल्लजखत क्षेत्र के संबंि में कॉलम (3) में उजल्लजखत इंजडयन

ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के प्रचालनरत पेरोजलयम पाइपलाइन के जलए उक्त अजिजनयम के अंतगात सक्षम प्राजिकारी के

कायों के जनष्पािन के जलए जनम्न ताजलका के कॉलम (1) में उजल्लजखत व्यजक्त को प्राजिकृत करती िै :-

व्यजक्त का नाम और पता

क्षेत्राजिकार का क्षेत्र

पेरोजलयम पाइपलाइनों का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

श्री अजभषेक गुप्ता,

मुख्य प्रचालन प्रबंिक,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड,

पूवी क्षेत्रीय पाइपलाइन्स, प्रयागराि

उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य

बरौनी कानपुर पाइपलाइन

लखनऊ एटीएफ़ पाइपलाइन

पटना मोतीिारी बैतालपुर पाइपलाइन

इससे पूवा एस.ओ. संख्या 707 दिनांक 27 िुलाई 2022 के अंतगात भारत के रािपत्र में दिनांक 6 अगस्ट्त 2022 को

प्रकाजित उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए पिले अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी श्री िोजभत

उपाध्याय, वररष्ठ प्रचालन प्रबन्िक, को डी-नोरटफ़ाइड समझा िाए।

यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की तारीख से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं. आर11025(11)/19/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27024]

िररत कुमार िाक्य, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2026

S.O. 1406.—In Pursuance of sub-section (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act), the Central

Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the

functions of the Competent authority under the said Act for IndianOil Corporation Limited in respect of

areas mentioned in column (2) for its operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in

Column (3) of the said Table:

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6931

Name and Address of the Person

Area of

Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipeline(s)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri Abhishek Gupta

Chief Operations Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

Eastern Region Pipelines, Prayagraj

Uttar Pradesh

State

Barauni Kanpur Pipeline

Lucknow ATF Pipeline

Patna Motihari Baitalpur Pipeline

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in State of Uttar Pradesh, Shri

Shobhit Upadhyay, Senior Operations Manager, vide S.O. No. 707 dated 27^th July 2022 published in the

Gazette of India dated 6^th August 2022 stands de-notified.

The Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R–11025(11)/19/2018-OR-I/E-27024]

HARIT KUMAR SHAKYA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1407.— पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अजिग्रिण) अजिजनयम

व्यजक्त का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्राजिकार क्षेत्र

पेरोजलयम पाइपलाइनों का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

श्री प्रणव कुमार,

वररष्ठ प्रचालन प्रबंिक,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड,

िजक्षण पूवी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स

खूंटी

झारखंड राज्य

पारािीप रायपुर रांची पाइपलाइन

इससे पूवा एस.ओ. संख्या 1222 दिनांक 28 नवंबर 2022 के अंतगात भारत के रािपत्र में दिनांक 3 दिसंबर 2022 को

प्रकाजित झारखंड राज्य में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए पिले अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी श्री पंकि कुमार

जसन्िा, मुख्य पररचालन प्रबंिक, को डी-नोरटफ़ाइड समझा िाए।

यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की तारीख से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं. आर11025(11)/19/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27024]

िररत कुमार िाक्य, अवर सजचव

6932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2026

S.O. 1407.—In Pursuance of sub section (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline

(Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act), the Central

Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the

functions of the Competent authority under the said Act for IndianOil Corporation Limited in respect of

areas mentioned in column (2) for its operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in

column (3) of the said Table:

Name & Address of the Person

Area of

Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipelines (s)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri Pranav Kumar

Senior Operations Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

South Eastern Region Pipelines

Khunti

Jharkhand State

Paradip Raipur Ranchi Pipeline

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in State of Jharkhand, Shri Pankaj

Kumar Sinha, Chief Operations Manager, vide S.O. No. 1222 dated 28^th November 2022 published in the

Gazette of India dated 3^rd December 2022 stands de-notified.

The Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R–11025(11)/19/2018-OR-I/E-27024]

HARIT KUMAR SHAKYA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1408.— पेरोजलयम और खजनि पाइपलाइन (भूजम में उपयोग के अजिकार का अजिग्रिण) अजिजनयम

व्यजक्त का नाम एवं पता

क्षेत्राजिकार क्षेत्र

पेरोजलयम पाइपलाइनों का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

श्री गांडला संतोष कुमार,

प्रचालन प्रबंिक,

इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड,

िजक्षण पूवी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स

िैिराबाि

तेलंगाना राज्य

पारािीप िैिराबाि पाइपलाइन

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6933

इससे पूवा एस.ओ. संख्या 708 दिनांक 27 िुलाई 2022 के अंतगात भारत के रािपत्र में दिनांक 6 अगस्ट्त 2022 को

प्रकाजित तेलंगाना राज्य में इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन जलजमटेड के जलए पिले अजिसूजचत सक्षम प्राजिकारी श्री वेंकटराम

रामावत, जनमााण प्रबन्िक को डी- नोरटफ़ाइड समझा िाए।

यि अजिसूचना इसके िारी िोने की तारीख से प्रभावी िोगी।

[फा. सं. आर 11025(11)/19/2018-ओआर-I/ई-27024]

िररत कुमार िाक्य, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 6th July, 2026

S.O. 1408.— In Pursuance of sub section (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline

(Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter called the said act), the Central

Government hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column (1) of the table given below to perform the

functions of the Competent authority under the said Act for IndianOil Corporation Limited in respect of

areas mentioned in column (2) for its operational petroleum pipelines laid under the said Act mentioned in

column (3) of the said Table:

Name & Address of the Person

Area of Jurisdiction

Name of Petroleum Pipelines (s)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Shri Gandla Santhosh Kumar

Operations Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

South Eastern Region Pipelines

Hyderabad

Telangana State

Paradip Hyderabad Pipeline

Earlier notified Competent Authority for Indian Oil Corporation Limited in State of Telangana, Shri

Venkatram Ramavath, Construction Manager, vide S.O. No. 708 dated 27^th July 2022 published in the

Gazette of India dated 6^th August 2022 stands de-notified.

The Notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. R–11025(11)/19/2018-OR-I/E-27024]

HARIT KUMAR SHAKYA, Under Secy.

श्रम एवं रोिगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1409.— औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

जनिेिक, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट फॉर ि मेंटल िैंडीकैप्ड, सामाजिक न्याय और अजिकाररता मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार,

जसकंिराबाि; उप जनिेिक, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट फॉर ि मेंटल िैंडीकैप्ड, सामाजिक न्याय और अजिकाररता मंत्रालय, भारत

सरकार, जसकंिराबाि; एस्ट्टेट ऑदफसर, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट फॉर ि मेंटल िैंडीकैप्ड, जसकंिराबाि; प्रबंि जनिेिक, मेघा प्रो

फैजसजलटी मैनेिमेंट प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िैिराबाि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती ए. लक्ष्मी कमाचारी के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभा संख्या-15/2016)

को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/43-आईआर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप वनदेशक

6934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2026

S.O. 1409.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2016) 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 Director, National Institute for the Mental Handicapped,

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, Secunderabad, Deputy Director,

National Institute for the Mental Handicapped, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,

Government of India, Secunderabad, The Estate Officer, National Institute for the Mental

Handicapped, Secunderabad, Managing Director, Megha Pro Facility Management Private Ltd,

Hyderabad and Smt. A. Laxmi, workman.

[No. L-42025/07/2026/43-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 4^th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 15 of 2016

Between:

Smt. A. Laxmi W/o late A. Raja Mouli,

Aged about 39 years, Occ: Horticulture (Mali),

R/o H.No.9-5-87/1, Anjaiahnagar, Hasmathpet,

Old Bwenpally, Ranga Reddy District-500 009.

..….Petitioner

AND

National Institute for the Mental Handicapped,

(A Government of India Undertaking, Autonomous Body),

Rep. by its Director, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,

Government of India, Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad-500 009.

National Institute for the Mental Handicapped,

(A Government of India Undertaking, Autonomous Body),

Rep. by its Deputy Director (Administration),

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,

Government of India, Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad-500 009.

The Estate Officer, National Institute for the Mental Handicapped,

(A Government of India Undertaking, Autonomous Body),

Rep. by its Deputy Director (Administration),

Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad-500 009.

Megha Pro Facility Management Private Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

H.No.8-3-318/11/11, Plot No.11, Jayaprakash Nagar,

Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-500 073.

….Respondent

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6935

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. V. Mallik, Advocates

For the Respondent:

M/s. N. Vijendher Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Smt. A. Lakshmi, against the Respondents, 1 to 4

under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with the prayer to set aside her termination

order dated 8^th September 2015 issued by Respondent No. 4. Further, it is prayed to direct the Respondents

to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages and all other

attendant benefits.

As per the claim statement, petitioner has averred that she was working under the control of the

1stn Respondent institution since 23^rd August 2000, as Mali in the Horticulture Department, and has been

discharging her duties without complaint from any corner. Further, it is averred that the Respondents 1, to

3 have been paying salary to the petitioner as per the salary statement. Therefore, there was an employer-

employee relationship between the petitioner and Respondents 1 to 3. Respondents have been paying salary

to the petitioner through middlemen, until 2011. Thereafter, Respondent has paid salary to Petitioner

directly as per salary statement was prepared and signed by Estate officers, which is enclosed herein to

substantiate the fact that the employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioner and

Respondents 1 to 3 herein since September 2011. Further, the petitioner averred that the Respondents has

paid salary directly to the petitioner till the end of May 2015, and again Respondents 1 to 3 have

introduced middlemen from June 2015 onwards for the payment of the salaries to the petitioner. The mode

of payment of wages is one of the conditions of service mentioned in Schedule IV of the ID Act, and

under Section 9-A, it is mandated that no employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of

service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the 4^th Schedule, shall effect such

change without giving to the workman any notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change

proposed to be effected. Further, it is submitted that this action of the Respondent is in contravention of

Section 9-A of the I.D Act and vide and initio in eyes of law.

Further, Petitioner submitted that Respondents 1 to 3 have no power to change the service

conditions under Section 9-A of the Act, and 4^th Respondent has no power to terminate the service of the

petitioner vide proceeding dated 8.9.2015, ordering the termination of the service of the petitioner.

Therefore, action of Respondent No.4 issuing order of termination dated 8^th September 2015 is null and

void and liable to be said aside. Further, petitioner submitted that the Respondents 1 to 4 herein are bound

to comply with Chapter V- B of the Industrial Disputes Act, in as much as since September 2011 the

petitioner is under direct control of Respondents 1 to 3 herein, and Respondents 1 to 4 are bound to follow

the procedure prescribed under Chapter V-B of the I.D Act. Further, it is submitted that Respondent has

terminated the service of Petitioner without following the procedure as prescribed under of Section 25-B

and 25-F of the ID Act. The termination order is not sustainable and contrary to the provision of the ID

Act. Therefore, petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 08.09.2015 of her termination issued by

the Respondent and to direct the Respondent to reinstate petitioner into service with continuity of service

with all attendant benefits and full back wages.

Notices were issued to Respondents. In response to the notice, Respondents 1 to 3 have filed

counter. Despite service of notice Respondent 4 did not file any counter and case was set ex-parte against

Respondent No. 4 by order dated 24^th August 2017. Further, Respondent No. 1 to 3 did not appear on the

date of hearing. Hence, case was proceeded ex-parte against Respondents 1 to 3 vide order dated

19.12.2019. Therefore, hearing of this case has been proceeded ex-parte and being decided after conclusion

of hearing.

6936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In support of averment of claim statement petitioner has filed chief statement affidavit and therein,

Petitioner has deposed that she was working as a casual labour under the control of the first Respondent

institution since 23^rd August 2000 as a mali in the Horticulture department and was discharging her duties

without any complaint from any corner. Further, petitioner deposed that, since 2011 onward, her salary has

been paid directly by Respondents 1 to 3, and salary statement was prepared and signed by the Estate

officer that is enclose herein to substantiate the fact that an employer-employee relationship existed

between the petitioner and Respondents 1 to 3 since September 2011. Further, deponent state that

Respondent has paid the salary to the Petitioner directly till end of May 2015 and thereafter introduced the

middleman from June 2015 onward. Deponent states that Respondent, without complying with the

mandatory condition of issuing a notice for change in the condition of service under section 9-A of the I.D

Act, has introduced the middleman and the action of the Respondent is illegal. Further, deponent states that

Respondent has terminated her service in gross violation of the provision contained under chapter V of the

I.D Act, as enshrined within the meaning of sections 25-B and 25-F of the I.D Act.

Further, petitioner has also exhibited documents in her testimony in support of her averment made

in claim statement. These documents are Ex. W1 is the salary statement of the petitioner issued by the 3rd

Respondent. Ex. W2 is the conciliation proceedings of the Assistant Labor Commissioner, Hyderabad. Ex.

W3, the RTI application dated 13^.03.2015. Ex. W4, the RTI information furnished by the second

Respondent. Ex. W5 is the termination order and Ex. W6 is the letter of the petitioner union to RLC(C)

dated 09.09.2015.

On going oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in support of her claim

document. Ex. W1/1 to Ex. W1/22 is the salary statements of the petitioner, which goes to reveal that

petitioner Smt. A. Lakshmi had worked with the Respondent No. 1 to 3 continuously from September 2011

on casual basis up to the date of her termination and she has been paid wages as per number of working

days month wise by the Respondent No. 1 to 3 Estate Officer. The termination order dated 8.9.2015 Ex.

W5 that goes to show that the Respondent No. 4 had issued the termination order, dated 8.9.2015 of the

petitioner A. Lakshmi. Therein, it is mentioned that Respondent No.4 have received the letter from

N.I.M.H for reducing the Horticulture labor, hence forth the services of the addressee is not required from

the date mentioned therein. Thus, from the perusal of document, Ex. W5 it is established that Petitioner had

worked with the Respondent No. 1 to 3 as a Horticulture labour from September 2011 to 8.09.2015 and her

services has been terminated vide letter dated 8.9.2015. Thus, it is clearly established that the petitioner had

worked with the Respondent No. 1 to 3 as a casual labour continuously since September 2011 up to the

date of termination i,e 08.09.2015 and she has been paid wages by Respondent No.1 to 3.

Section 25F of the I.D Act, provides condition precedent for retrenchment of the workman. The

provision is extracted as here under: -

“25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. ---No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched

by that employer until

(a) The workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such

notice, wages for the period of the notice:

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

to fifteen days’ average pay {for every completed year of continuous service} or any part thereof in

excess of six months: and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate government {or such authority as

may be specified by the appropriate government by notification in the official Gazette.”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6937

Thus, as per provision contained under section 25-F of I.D Act, before termination of Petitioner

from service Respondent has not given one month notice to the Petitioner in writing indicating reasons for

retrenchment or workman has not been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of notice. Further,

Respondent has not paid compensation to the workman as per provision of the section 25F of Act.

Therefore, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of workman Petitioner is in contravention

of provision of section 25-F of I.D Act, and same is liable to be set aside.

Thus, ongoing oral and documentary evidence produced by Petitioner it is established that

Petitioner workman had worked with the Respondent No. 1 to 3 from September 2011 to 08.09.2015

continuously and Petitioner has been terminated in contravention of provision of Section 25-F of I.D Act.

Further it is established that Respondent No. 1 to 3 has changed the condition of services of Petitioner

without complying the provision of section 9-A of the I.D Act. The oral and documentary evidence

adduced by the Petitioner remains uncontroverted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the

evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, the evidence of the petitioner is liable to be accepted and it is proved

that termination order dated 08.09.2015 of the Petitioner from service is illegal and that is liable to be set

aside.

AWARD

The claim of the petitioner is allowed. The termination order dated 08.09.2015 of the petitioner A. Laxmi

from service issued by the Respondent is hereby set aside. Respondent No. 1 to 3 is directed to reinstate the

petitioner into service, with continuity and all attendant benefits within in one-month from date of

publication of order. Respondent No. 1 to 3 are also directed to pay the half back wages, to the petitioner

from the date of her termination till the reinstatement of Petitioner.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on this the 4^th day

of February 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Smt. A. Laxmi

MW1: NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1/1 to Ex. W/1/22 : Photostat copy of salary statement of Petitioner evidence issued by

3^rd Respondent.

Ex.W2

: Photostat copy of conciliation of the ALC(C), Hyderbad dt:

10.11.201.

Ex.W3

: Photostat copy of RTI application dt:12.03.2015

Ex.W4

: Photostat copy of RTI information furnished by the 2^nd Respondent

Dt:22.05.2015.

Ex.W5

: Photostat copy of Original termination order.

Ex.W6

: Photostat copy of representation of Petitioner evidence union to

The RLC(C) dt: 090.09.2015.

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

6938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1410.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार,

मुख्य मिाप्रबंिक एनटीपीसी जलजमटेड, जसम्िारी सुपर थमाल पावर प्रोिेक्ट, जविाखापत्तनम, आंध्र प्रिेि के प्रबंितंत्र के

संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री बीला सन्यासी नायडू और 4 अन्य, कमाचारी के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभा संख्या-52/2025) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/44-आईआर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप वनदेशक

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2026

S.O. 1410.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947),the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/2025) 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 The Chief General Manager, NTPC Ltd, Simhadri Super

Thermal Power Project Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh and Sri Beela Sanyasi Naidu and 4 others,

workman.

[No. L-42025/07/2026/44-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5^th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 52/2025

Between:

Sri Beela Sanyasi Naidu and 4 others,

C/o C &M Stores Department,

NTPC Simhadari, Parawada,

Visakhapatnam

..….Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager

NTPC Ltd, Simhadri Super Thermal Power Project

NTPC Simhadri, Parawada, Visakhapatnam

Andhra Pradesh-531020

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s N. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate

For the Respondent(s): M/s C. Niranjan Rao, Advocate

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6939

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.8/4/2025-B1 dated 29-01-2025

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

between the management of M/s NTPC Limited and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand for regularization of service in respect of S/Sri Beela Sanyasi Naidu, Rajan

Appalanaidu, A. Sai Sudarsana Rao, Nemala Siva Kumar and Pedapati Siva Kumar working as date Entry

Operator at par with the permanent employees of NTPC Limited Simhadri engaged through erstwhile M/s

Utitlity Projects Limited (A Joint Venture of NTPC Ltd.) working in the establishment of NTPC Limited,

Simhadri, Dist. Anakapalli is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 52/2025 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

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 Shri Vinay Panghal, Lower Division Clerk , corrected by me on this the

5th day of February, 2026

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1411.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार,

िनरल मैनेिर, टेलीकॉम जडजस्ट्रक्ट, बीएसएनएल, एलुरु, आंध्र प्रिेि और के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और जडजस्ट्रक्ट

सेक्रेटरी, नेिनल यूजनयन ऑफ़ बीएसएनएल वकासा (एफएनटीओ), आंध्र प्रिेि, कमाचारी के बीच औद्योजगक जववाि के बीच

अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभा संख्या-14/2014)

को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।

[सं. एल-40011/76/2013-आईआर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप वनदेशक

6940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2026

S.O. 1411.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2014) 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 The General Manager, Telecom District., BSNL, Eluru, Andhra

Pradesh and The District Secretary, National Union of BSNL Workers (FNTO), Andhra Pradesh,

workman.

[No. L-40011/76/2013-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVBERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR

COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present:

Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 12^th day of November 2025

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 14 of 2014

Between:

The District Secretary,

National Union of BSNL Workers (FNTO),

West Godavari District Branch,

ELURU, A.P. The District Secretary,

….. Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Telecom District., BSNL,

Eluru, West Godavari District.,

ELURU, A.P.

…. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri WILLIAM BHURRA , Advocate

For the Respondent:

Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-40011/76/2013 (IRDU) dated 22^nd

January 2014 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 requiring this

forum to decide the question.

SCHEDULE

1.“Whether the demands of workmen of BSNL, Eluru is legal and justified. If not, what other relief

the workmen are entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, it was numbered as ID number 14 of 2014, and notices were

issued to both the workmen and the management and that got served.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6941

3. The Petitioner union has filed claim statement with the prayer that the respondent management

be directed to promote TH.M.L. Narayana, STS, (O) Eluru as per the rule. In the claim statement

Petitioner has alleged that the workman, T.H.M.L. Narayana, STS, (O) is an employee working at Eluru

under the Respondent management, and Respondent management is under obligation to upgrade the

Confidential Reports of the T.H.M.L. Narayana, STS,(O) Eluru, and same to be communicated to the

employees concerned to improve his performance. But Respondent management has not communicated the

entry of ACR to every employee in compliance of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Devdutt

Vs Union of India. The non-communication of entry in the ACR of employees is arbitrary and as such

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and also depriving the applicant from making a

representation against it, which has, in turn, affected the chances of the applicant being promoted.

Further, Petitioner has averred that in the year 2011, police has arrested T.Ms Viz., Sri B. Ram

Mohan Rao, M. Appa Rao, M. Surya Rao, T. Durga Rao, Md. Rehman Sharif, K.S. Srinivas Rao, D.

Venkat Rao, and Satya Prasad, as they were indulge in playing cards while on duty. After the arrested they

were produced before the court for their criminal activities. All of the workman accused conferred before

the court and they were imposed a fine of ₹ 200 each, and all of them paid the fine. Further, it is alleged

that when the said matter came into the knowledge of the respondent management, a show cause notice

was issued to all the workmen, calling for explanation and after submitting their explanations, they were

transferred to different rural telephone exchanges, as shown in the single transfer order dated 17^th August

2011, as a punishment. Further, it is alleged that one of the workmen, Shri K. S. Srinivas Rao, who is a

member of Recognized Union BSNL ENIS, was brought back to an urban telephone exchange, while

others were not brought back, as they belong to an unrecognized union. Further, it is alleged that the action

of Respondent management in transferring the workmen to rural telephone exchanges as a punishment is

illegal, in operative, and against the provision of law. The action of the Respondent management in

considering the transfer of K. S. Srinivas Rao, TM, to an urban telephone exchange, being a member of a

recognized union, is also illegal and untenable, as such is a biased attitude on the part of the Respondent

management. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order of transfer of the remaining seven workmen to urban

telephone exchanges in the interest of justice.

Further, Petitioner has alleged that the respondent management is showing undue favor to the

recognized union, flouting their own instructions issued from time to time. The Respondent management at

Eluru had issued a circular dated 19^th March 2008 to all the unions functioning in their organization,

advising them not to conduct agitational programs within the premises of the office of the General

Manager Telecom District, West Godavari, Eluru, followed by a reminder circular dated 29 November

2012. In spite of these instructions, the recognized union continues to conduct agitational programs within

the office premises. The half of the unrecognized unions brought this fact to the notice of the respondent

management for taking instant action against the said recognized union, but the Respondent management

was lukewarm to such an appeal. Therefore, Petitioner prayed that the management may be suitably

punished for its partisan attitude shown to the unrecognized union in the interest of justice.

4. Per contra, the Respondent has filed counter, and therein has denied all the material allegations

made in the claim statement, except that are admitted here, and contended that petitioner is put to strict

proof of the same. Further, Respondent contended that the ACRS of Shri TH. M. L. Narayana, STS, SO,

Eluru, has been upgraded, and the official has been granted his first any PP on 1^st October 2004, and

second any PP on 1^st October 2011, and the grievances of the said employee were settled on 20^th May

2015. Further, Respondent contended that Respondent denies the allegation of the claim statement

regarding the change of transfer of Shri K. Srinivas Rao, TM, in favor of BSNL EU, as it is not true and

correct. It is submitted that a vacancy existed to the place, i.e., Anantapalli, where Shri K. S. Srinivas Rao,

TM, requested a change of posting and transfer order was modified, as there was no vacancy available at

that point time at the place Tadikalapudi and Aadamalli, as required by Shri T. Durga Rao, TM, Eluru and

his request could not be considered to the said places. Respondent denied each of the material allegations

made by the petitioner in claim statement in this regard. Further, it is contended that the Respondent

department has circulated the office letter dated 29^t-11- 2012 to all unions associations to prohibit any kind

of holding of meetings or dharnas inside the office premises. The Respondent has specifically denied the

allegation of favoritism to the recognized union against the rule, and each of such material allegations

made by the petitioner.

6942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the following issues arise for determination: -

1. Whether the demand of the workman of BSNL Eluru is legal and justified?

2. To what other relief if any workmen are entitled?

Findings:-

Issue No.I: -

As per claim statement petitioner has alleged that, due to non-upgradation of confidential report of

T. H. M. L. Narayana, HS, TS, he could not be promoted, whereas respondent management is under

obligation to upgrade the confidential reports of workman. In support of this allegation, petitioner has filed

the chief evidence affidavit of witness WW1 K. S. R. Murthy. Where in witness has reiterated the

averment of claim statement. But, despite sufficient opportunity, this witness WW1 did not turn up for

cross-examination. Therefore, the opportunity to produce the evidence was closed by the court vide order

of 8^th February 2023. As per law evidence for the want of cross-examination, the evidence of WW1 cannot

be read in evidence. Petitioner did not adduce any other evidence to substantiate the allegation of claim

statement. However, the Respondent, has contended that the ACR of Sri T. H. M. L. Narayana, S. T. S. (O)

Eluru, has been upgraded, and he has been granted the first N E P P and second N E P P, and the grievance

of the employee was settled on 20^th May 2015. In support of this contention, the Respondent has also filed

the copy of order dated 20^th May 2015, issued by S. D. E. H. R., whereby the ACR of T. H. M. L.

Narayana has been upgraded, and workman has been granted the first N E P P on 1^st October 2004, and the

second N E P P on 1^st October 2011, and the case of the workman has been closed. Therefore, the

grievances of the workman have been meet out vide order dated 20^th May 2015, by the Respondent.

Regarding rest of allegation of the petitioner, that the workman, who had been transferred as a

punishment, their transfer orders are illegal, against the law. In this context, Petitioner has failed to prove

any evidence on record to prove that the transfer orders, issued by the Respondent of these workman, vide

order dated 17^th August 2011, was motivated by personal bias, grudge, or improper motive. Further, the

petitioner workman failed to prove that the transfer order dated 17^th August 2011 has been issued in

violation of certified standing orders or employment contract, or that it result in a change of service

condition. Thus, petitioner has failed to discharge its burden of proof by adducing any positive evidence in

this regard. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that their transfer was illegal is not tenable. Further,

as regards the allegation of partial attitude towards the unrecognized union by the Respondent

management, the petitioner failed to bring any cogent and reliable evidence on record so as to establish the

plea partisan attitude toward Petitioner union being unrecognized as made in the claim statement.

Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the demand of the

workman of BSNL Eluru is not legal and justified.

The issue is decided against Petitioner.

Issue No.II:-

In view of the discussion and finding given at Issue No. I petitioner workman is not entitled to any

relief and Petition is liable to be dismissed.

AWARD

In view of the finding on Issue No. I and II the demand of the workman of BSNL Eluru is not legal and

justified. The claim statement filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit stands dismissed. The reference is

answered accordingly.

Transmit as per provision of ID Act.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me

on this the 11^thof November, 2025.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6943

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1412.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार,

उप-जनिेिक , िूरििान केंर, िैिराबाि (तेलंगाना) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री वी. चंरिेखर, कमाचारी के बीच

औद्योजगक जववाि अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि पंचाट (संिभा

संख्या-151/2025) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/45-आईआर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप वनदेशक

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2026

S.O. 1412.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 151/2025) 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 The Dy.Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Ramanthapur,

Hyderabad Telangana and Sri V Chandra sekhar, workman.

[No. L-42025/07/2026/45-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5^th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 151/2025

Between:

Sri V Chandra sekhar,

R/o 1-2-20/3, Ravulacheruvu, VTC, Amalapuram,

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Konaseema,

Andhra Pradesh-533201

8074689307

..….Petitioner

6944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Dy.Director (E), Doordarshan Kendra,

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad

Telangana-533201

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: M/s Ravinder Viswanath, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 8/13/2025-B1 dated 01.05.2025

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

between the management of M/s Doordarshan Kendra and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the submission of M/s Doordarshan kendra, Hyderabad in no-regularization of service of

sri v. Chandra sekhar is justified? If not what relief Sri V. Chandra Sekhar is entitled to?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 151/2025 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

Case is fixed for filing claim statement and documents. Despite sufficient opportunity

petitioner did not filed any claim statement. It seems petitioner do not want to prosecute hise

case. Hence a ‘Nil Award’ is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the 5^th

Day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6945

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1413.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार,

िनरल मैनेिर टेलीकॉम, बीएसएनएल, श्रीकाकुलम, आंध्र प्रिेि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और ज़िला सजचव,

भारतीय टेलीकॉम एम्प्लॉई़ि यूजनयन के कमाचाररयों के बीच औद्योजगक जववाि के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार

औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभा संख्या-136/2025) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया

गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/47-आईआर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप वनदेशक

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2026

S.O. 1413.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 136/2025) 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 The General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Srikakulam and The

District Secretary Bharatiya Telecom Employees Union, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

[No. L-42025/07/2026/47-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 05^th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 136/2025

Between:

The District Secretary

Bharatiya Telecom Employees

Union (BSNL) (Affiliation to BMS)

Plot No. 17, Visakha B Colony, Seetanagar

Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh-532001

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager Telecom,

BSNL 2^nd Floor, Sanchar Bhavan,

Srikakulam-532001

…Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

6946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order no. 6/1/2025-B1 dated 10.02.2025

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

between the management of BSNL and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether the transfer orders issued in respect of Sri Malico Narasimhulu, JE, Vizianagaram OA

and District President of BTEU, Srikakulam and Sri C.H.V. Satyanarayana, JE by the management of

BSNL, GM Telecom, Srikakulam is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?’

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 136/2025 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2. Case is fixed for filing claim statement and documents. Despite sufficient opportunity

petitioner didn’t filed any claim statement and documents.. It seems petitioner do not want to

prosecute his case. Hence a ‘Nil Award’ is passed. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, LDC corrected and signed by me on this the

5^th day of February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1414.—औद्योगिक गििाद अगिगियम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अिुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, जनरल मैनेजर,

M/s भारत हेवी इलेक्ट्रिकल्स क्ट्लक्ट्मटेड, रामचंरपुरम, हैदराबाद के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गियोजकों और जनरल सेक्रेटरी, बीएचईएल

एम्प्लॉइज िेड यूक्ट्नयन कांग्रेस, हैदराबाद, कममचारी के बीच अिुबंि में गिगदिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योक्ट्िक अक्ट्िकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय,

हैदराबाद पंचाट (संदर्ि संख्या-71/2015) को जैसा गक अिुलग्िक में गदखाया िया है, प्रकागित करती है।

[सं. एल-42011/87/2015-आईआर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप वनदेशक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6947

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2026

S.O. 1414.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.71/2015) 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 The General Manager, M/s Bharat Heave Electrical Limited,

Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad and The General Secretary, BHEL Employees Trade Union

Congress, Hyderabad, workman.

[No. L-42011/87/2015-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 5^th Day February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 71/2015

Between:

The General Secretary,

BHEL Employees Trade Union Congress,

Regd No. A-1018, MIG-510, BHEL,

RC Puram, Hyderabad-502032.

..….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s Bharat Heave Electrical Limited,

Ramachandrapuram,

Hyderabad-502032.

… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s M. Niclos, Advocate

For the Respondent(s): M/s B. Kiran Kumar, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-42011/87/2015 (IR(DU)) dated

06-08-2015 referred the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to

this Tribunal between the management of M/s Bharat Heave Electrical Limited, and their workmen. The

reference is,

6948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of management of M/s Bharat Heave Electrical Limited,Ramachandrapuram,

Hyderabad in imposing the penalty of reduction to Artisan, Grade-IV (Welder) from Artisan Grade-II

(Welder) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 71/2015 and notices were issued to the

parties concerned.

2. Petitioner absent on the date fixed for 11-A arguments. No arguments filed by petitioner. It

seems petitioner do not want to prosecute his case. Hence a ‘Nil Award’ is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Shri Vinay Panghal, Lower Division Clerk , corrected by me on this the

5^th Day February, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1415.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार उप

जसकंिराबाि; एस्ट्टेट अजिकारी, नेिनल इंस्ट्टीट्यूट फॉर ि मेंटल िैंडीकैप्ड, जसकंिराबाि; प्रबंि जनिेिक, मेघा प्रो फैजसजलटी

मैनेिमेंट प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, िैिराबाि के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्रीमती चचंतापाटला नागरानी, कमाचारी के

बीच अनुबंि में जनर्िाष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय, िैिराबाि पंचाट(संिभा संख्या-

19/2016) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, प्रकाजित करती िै।

[सं. एल-42025/07/2026/37-आईआर(डीयू)]

सलोनी, उप वनदेशक

New Delhi, the 9th July, 2026

S.O. 1415.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the

Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2016) 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 Deputy Director, National Institute for the Mental Handicapped,

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, Secunderabad, The Estate

Officer, National Institute for the Mental Handicapped, Secunderabad, Managing Director, Megha

Pro Facility Management Private Ltd,, Hyderabad and Smt. Chintapatla Nagarani, workman.

[No. L-42025/07/2026/37-IR(DU)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई, 18/आषाढ, 27,1948

6949

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri Irfan Qamar

Presiding Officer

Dated the 4^th day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 19 of 2016

Between:

Smt. Chintapatla Nagarani,

W/o Ch. Mahender,

R/o H.No.-5-227, Chanda Banda Raju Colony,

Balnagar, Ranga Reddy.

..….Petitioner

AND

1. National Institute for the Mental handicapped,

(A Government of India Undertaking, Autonomous Body),

Rep. by its Deputy Director (Administration),

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,

Government of India, Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad-500 009.

2. The Estate Officer, National Institute for the Mental Handicapped,

(A Government of India Undertaking, Autonomous Body),

Rep. by its Deputy Director (Administration),

Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad-500 009.

3. Megha Pro Facility Management Private Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

H.No.8-3-318/11/11, Plot No.11, Jayaprakash Nagar,

Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad-500 073.

…...Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. V. Mallik, Advocates

For the Respondent:

M/s. N. Vijendher Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

This petition has been filed by the petitioner, Smt.Ch. Nagarani, against the Respondents, 1 to 4

under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with the prayer to set aside her termination

order dated 31.08.2015 issued by Respondent No. 4. Further, it is prayed to direct the Respondents to

reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, with full back wages and all other attendant

benefits.

6950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 18, 2026/ASHADHA 27, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

As per the claim statement, petitioner has averred that she was working under the control of the 1st

Respondent institution since 2.05.2011, as Sweeper in housekeeping in the Horticulture Department, and

has been discharging her duties without complaint from any corner. Further, it is averred that the

Respondents 1, to 3 have been paying salary to the petitioner as per the salary statement. Therefore, there

was an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and Respondents 1 to 3. Respondents have

been paying salary to the petitioner through middlemen, until 2011. Thereafter, Respondent has paid salary

to Petitioner directly as per salary statement was prepared and signed by Estate officers, which is enclosed

herein to substantiate the fact that the employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioner and