6147 GI/2026

(9419)

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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजधकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजहक

WEEKLY

सं. 32]

नई ददल् ली, अगस्ट् त 16—अगस्ट् त 22, 2026, िजनवार/ श्रावण 25—श्रावण 31, 1948

No. 32]

NEW DELHI, AUGUST 16— AUGUST 22, 2026, SATURDAY/ SHRAVAN 25–– SHRAVAN 31, 1948

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

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

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उृ-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

जवत्त मंत्रालय

(जवत्तीय सेवाएं जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1774.— रा्‍ रीय आवास बैंक अजधजनयम, 1987 (1987 का 53) की धारा (6) की उृधारा (1) के खंड

(ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, श्री अजमत िुक्ला के स्ट्थान ृर श्री ृीयूष

श्रीवास्ट्तव, वररष्ठ आर्थथक सलाहकार (ग्रामीण आवासन), ग्रामीण जवकास मंत्रालय, नई ददल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से और

अगले आदेिों तक रा्‍ रीय आवास बैंक के जनदेिक मंडल में जनदेिक के ृद ृर जनयुि करती हैं।

[फा. सं. एफटी-1/12/2022-आईएफ-II]

कुमार िजलेन्र, अवर सजचव

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-21092026-276351

CG-DL-W-21092026-276351

9420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1774.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the National

Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Piyush Srivastava, Senior

Economic Advisor (Rural Housing), Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi as a Director on the Board of

Directors of National Housing Bank, with immediate effect and until further orders, vice Shri Amit Shukla.

[F. No. FT-1/12/2022-IF-II]

KUMAR SHAILENDRA, Under Secy.

(राजस्ट्व जवभाग)

(जहन्दी-2)

नई ददल्ली, 18 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1775.— केन्र सरकार, राजभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोजनों के जलए प्रयोग) जनयम, 1976 के जनयम

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

कायाडलयों, जजनके 80 प्रजतित से अजधक अजधकाररयों एवं कमडचाररयों ने जहन्दी का कायडसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया हज, को

अजधसूजचत करती हजैः

क्रम सं.

कायाडलय का नाम

1. राष्ट्रीय सीमा िुल्क, अप्रत्यक्ष कर और नाकोरटक्स अकादमी, आंचजलक प्रजिक्षण संस्ट्थान, ददल्ली।

2. माल एवं सेवा कर प्रधान आयुि का कायाडलय, जसकंदराबाद आयुिालय, जीएसटी भवन, बिीरबाग,

हजदराबाद।

3. आयुि सीमा िुल्क, लेखा ृरीक्षा का कायाडलय, नवीन सीमा िुल्क भवन, नई ददल्ली।

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

प्रीजत सेलारे, उृ जनदेिक (रा.भा.)

(Department of Revenue)

(Hindi-2)

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2026

S.O. 1775.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of

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

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

official language Hindi:

S.No.

Name of the Office

1.

National Academy of Customs, Indirect Tax and Narcotics, Zonal Training Institute, Delhi.

2.

Office of the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Secunderabad Commissionerate, GST

Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

3.

Office of the Commissioner of Customs Audit, New Customs House, New Delhi.

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

PREETI SELLARE, Dy. Director (OL)

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9421

जवदेि मन्त्रालय

(सी.ृी.वी. प्रभाग)

.नई ददल्ली, 7 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1776.— राजनजयक और कोंसुलीय अजधकारी (िृथ एवं फीस) के अजधजनयम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड

(क) के अनुसरण में वजधाजनक आदेि ।

एतद् द्वारा,केंर सरकार भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास दुबई मेेँ श्री आिीष िमाड, सहायक अनुभाग अजधकारी को

ददनांक अगस्ट्त 07, 2026 से सहायक कोंसुलर अजधकारी के तौर ृर कोंसुलर सेवाओं के जनवडहन के जलए प्राजधकृत

करती हज।

[फा. सं. टी.4330/01/2026(14)]

, अवर सजचव ( -II)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2026

S.O. 1776.—Statutory Order in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular

Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1048), the Central Government hereby appoints Mr. Ashish Sharma,

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

consular services as Assistant Consular Officer with effect from August 07, 2026.

[F. No. T.4330/01/2026(14)]

TARUN KUMAR, Under Secy.(CPV-II)

कार्थमक, लोक जिकायत और ृेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्थमक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई ददल्ली, 20 माचड, 2026

का.आ. 1777.— केंरीय सरकार, भारतीय नागररक सुरक्षा संजहता, 2023 (2023 का 46) की धारा 18 की

उृधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एस.वी.राजू, भारत के एजडिनल सॉजलजसटर जनरल, को जविेष

न्यायाधीि के न्यायालय सजहत जवचारण न्यायालय और कनाडटक राज्य के उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस

स्ट्थाृन (केंरीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत मामला सं्‍या आरसी 17(एस)/2019-सीबीआई/एसीबी/ बीएलआर

(धारवाड हत्या मामला – जविेष मामला सं. 565/21 और 1856/21) के अजभयोजन का और तत्समय प्रवृत्त जवजध द्वारा

स्ट्थाजृत दकसी अृील या ृुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में, ऐसे मामलों से उद्भूत, दकसी अृील, ृुनरीक्षण या अन्य मामलों का

संचालन करने हेतु, ृदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से या मामले का जनृटान होने तक या अगले आदेिों तक, इनमें से जो

भी ृूवडतर हो, जविेष लोक अजभयोजक के प ृ में जनयुि करती हज ।

[फा. सं. 225/02/2021-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

9422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 20th August, 2026

S.O. 1777.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S. V Raju, Additional Solicitor

General of India as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of case number RC 17(S)/2019/-

CBI/ACB/BLR (Dharwad Murder case-Special case numbers 565/21 and 1856/21) instituted by the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) before the trial court including court of Special Judge and

High Court in the State of Karnataka, and any appeal, revision or other matters arising out of such cases in any

appellate or revisional Court established by law for the time being in force, from the date of assumption of charge or

until disposal of the case or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/02/2021-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 23 माचड, 2026

का.आ. 1778.— केन् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ददल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 की

केन्रीय अजधजनयम सं. XXV) की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए

ृंजाब राज्य सरकार की अजधसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.: गृह–एचएम-40जवजवध/25/2024-4एच4/I/1312772/2026, ददनांक

09.02.2026, गृह जवभाग (गृह-4 िाखा) के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से भारतीय दंड संजहता की धाराएं 120-बी सृर त

धारा 465 और भ्रष्टाचार जनरोधक अजधजनयम, 1988 (वषड 2018 में यथा संिोजधत) की धारा 7 एवं 7ए के तहत दंडनीय

अृराधों और उस के मूल अृराधों के जलए 1. श्री सुरेंर कुमार, लेखाकार, आंतररक लेखा-ृरीक्षा दल (आईएृी), गृह

मंत्रालय, सीमा सुरक्षा बल, जालंधर, ृंजाब फ्रंरटयर, जनवासी, ग्राम ृंचायत कायाडलय-कालवां, तहसील-आनंदृुर साजहब,

जजला-रोृड़, ृंजाब-140117, 2. श्री ृूणड चंद दकिन, प्रधान आरक्षक/जीडी, सीमा सुरक्षा बल (सं. 904012167)

तत्कालीन 132 बटाजलयन, सीमा सुरक्षा बल, (अब सेवा मु्‍यालय, सीमा सुरक्षा बल, कोराृुट), 3. श्री जजतेन्र कुमार,

आरक्षक (सं. 124523212), 136 बटाजलयन, सीमा सुरक्षा बल, 4. श्री बलराम यादव, आरक्षक (सं. 133201923),

136 बटाजलयन, सीमा सुरक्षा बल, 5. श्री मनोज कुमार, आरक्षक (सं. 042547316), 136 बटाजलयन, सीमा सुरक्षा बल,

6. श्री अमनदीृ ससह, गजर सरकारी व्यजि और 7. श्रीमती मीना कुमारी, सुरेंर कुमार की ृत्नी के जवरुद्ध ददनांक

13.02.2026 को दजड दकए गए आरसी 0052026ए0003 में ृंजीकरण एवं अन्वेषण हेतु ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के

सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से ददनांक 13.02.2026 से) ृंजाब राज्य में करती

हज।

[फा. सं. 228/26/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2026

S.O. 1778.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act no. XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the

consent of the State Government of Punjab, issued vide Notification Memo No.: HOME-HM-40MISC/25/2024-

4H4/I/1312772/2026, Dated 09.02.2026, Department of Home Affairs (Home-4 Branch), hereby extends the powers

and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Punjab (ex post facto w.e.f.

13.02.2026) for registration and investigation in RC0052026A0003 registered on 13.02.2026 against 1. Sh. Surendar

Kumar, Accountant, Internal Audit Party (IAP), MHA, BSF, Jalandhar Punjab Frontier, R/o VPO Kalwan, Tehsil,

Anandpur Sahib, Distt-Ropar, Punjab-140117, 2. Sh. Purna Chand Kisan, HC/GD, BSF (No. 904012167) then 132 Bn

BSF (now SHQ BSF Koraput), 3. Sh. Jitender Kumar, Constable (No. 124523212), 136 Bn BSF, 4. Sh. Balram

Yadav, Constable (No. 133201923), 136 Bn BSF, 5. Sh. Manoj Kumar, Constable (No. 042547316), 136 Bn BSF, 6.

Sh. Amandeep Singh, Private Person and 7. Smt. Meena Kumari, Wife of Surender Kumar for the offences

punishable under sections 120-B r/w 465 of IPC and Sections 7 & 7A of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and

substantive offences thereof.

[F. No. 228/26/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9423

नई ददल्ली, 23 माचड, 2026

का.आ. 1779.— केंरीय सरकार, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

अजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तेलंगाना राज्य

सरकार की अजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.134, ददनांक 10.12.2025, गृह (जविेष) जवभाग एवं संिोजधत अजधसूचना

सं. जी.ओ.एमएस.सं.30, ददनांक 10.03.2026, गृह (जविेष) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से थाना नामतैः सेंरल

क्राइम स्ट्टेिन, हजदराबाद, तेलंगाना में भारतीय न्याय संजहता, 2023 की धारा 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) सृर त धारा

61(2) के तहत ददनांक 19.10.2024 को दजड मामला एफआईआर सं्‍या 213/2024, जजसे सीबीआई को जवजधवत

हस्ट्तांतररत की जा रही हज, के आरोृों के साथ-साथ भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 के अध्याय–III के तहत अृराधों

के जांच/अन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार तेलंगाना

राज्य में करती हज तादक केन्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो (सीबीआई) माननीय लोकृाल के आदेिों का अनुृालन कर सके।

[फा. सं. 228/29/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 23rd March, 2026

S.O. 1779.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent

of the State Government of Telangana, issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.134, Dated 10.12.2025, Home

(Special) Department and Amendment Notification No. G.O.Ms.No.30, Dated 10.03.2026, Home (Special)

Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in

Telangana for conducting Enquiry / Investigation into the allegations, duly transferring the case registered in FIR

No.213/2024 dated 19.10.2024 under section 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) read with 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 at Police Station namely, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, Telangana and also for the offences under Chapter-

III of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so as to enable the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to comply

with the orders of the Hon‘ble Lokpal.

[F. No. 228/29/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 27 माचड, 2026

का.आ. 1780.—केंरीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय

अजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तजमलनाडु राज्य

सरकार की अजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ.(2डी).सं.94 ददनांक : 03.03.2026, गृह (नागररकता) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी

सम्मजत से आईडीबीआई बैंक जलजमटेड के साथ 11.97 करोड़ रुृये की धोखाधड़ी करने हेतु (i) अृने प्रोमोटेसड/जनदेिकों के

माध्यम से मेससड श्री लक्ष्मी सरस्ट्वती जस्ट्ृनटेक्स जलजमटेड, (ii) श्री बी.िरत चन्र, (iii) श्री सी.एस. आददत्य प्रवीण, (iv) श्री

एस.नवीन चन्र एवं आईडीबीआई बैंक जलजमटेड के अज्ञात लोक सेवकों के जवरुद्ध भारतीय दंड संजहता, 1860 (1860 का

केन्रीय अजधजनयम XLV) की धारा 120-बी सृर त धारा 420 एवं भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम,1988 (1988 का

केन्रीय अजधजनयम 49) की धारा 13(2) सृर त धारा 13(1)(डी) और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम,1988 (2018 के

अजधजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 13(2) सृर त 13(1)(ए) के तहत दंडनीय अजभकजथत अृराधों एवं उसके

मूल अृराधों का अन्वेषण करने हेतु एफआईआर दजड करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों

और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त तजमलनाडु राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/28/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

9424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th March, 2026

S.O. 1780.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No. G.O.(2D).No.94 Dated: 03.03.2026, Home

(Citizenship) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu to register a FIR for investigation of offences as alleged

against (i) M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd. through its Promoters/Directors, (ii) Shri B. Sarath Chandra, (iii)

Shri C.S. Aditya Praveen, (iv) Shri S. Naveen Chandra and unknown public servants of the IDBI Bank Ltd. for

cheating the IDBI Bank Ltd. to the tune of Rs.11.97 crores for the offences punishable under section 120-B read with

section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act XLV of 1860) and under section 13(2) read with section

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) and under section 13(2) read with section

13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended vide Act 16 of 2018) and substantive offences

thereof.

[F. No. 228/28/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 30 माचड, 2026

का.आ. 1781.—केंरीय सरकार, एतद् द्वारा, ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केंरीय

अजधजनयम 25) की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तजमलनाडु राज्य

सरकार की अजधसूचना सं. जी.ओ. (2डी) सं.86 ददनांक : 24.02.2026, गृह (ृुजलस-XIV) जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी

सम्मजत से श्री एम. धमडराज, ृुत्र मरुदामुथु, केन्रीय उत्ृाद िुल्क /वस्ट्तु एवं सेवा कर जनरीक्षक (सेवाजनवृत), भारत

सरकार, उनकी ृत्नी श्रीमती वाणी उफड कलजवाणी एवं उनका ृुत्र डी. प्रभु दौस के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम,

1988 की धारा 13(2) सृर त धारा 13(1)(ङ) तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 (2018 में यथा संिोजधत) की

धारा 13(2) सृर त धारा 13(1)(ख), भारतीय दंड संजहता की धारा 109, भारतीय न्याय संजहता, 2023 की समकक्ष

धारा 49 के अंतगडत दंडनीय आय से अजधक संृजत्त 1.42 करोड़ रुृये रखने के आरोृ में एवं इस मामले से संबंजधत उसी

संव्यवहार में अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य काररत अृराध के अन्वेषण हेतु जनयजमत मामले का ृंजीकरण करने

के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार सम्ृूणड तजमलनाडु राज्य में

करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/30/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 30th March, 2026

S.O. 1781.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of

the State Government of Tamil Nadu, issued vide Notification No.G.O. (2D) No.86, Dated:24.02.2026, Home

(Police-XIV) Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment in the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu for registration of a regular case to conduct investigation

against Shri M. Dharmaraj, S/o Maruthamuthu, Inspector of Central Excise/Goods and Services Tax (Retd.),

Government of India, his wife Smt. Vani @ Kalaivani and his son D. Prabhu Doss for the allegation of possession of

disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.1.42 crores punishable under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018),

section 109 of Indian Penal Code, corresponding section 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and any other

offence committed in the course of same transaction or arising out of the same facts, in regard to this case.

[F. No. 228/30/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9425

नई ददल्ली, 2 अप्रजल, 2026

का.आ. 1782.—केन् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ददल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, िाखा प्रमुख, सीबीआई, एसीबी,

धनबाद के ददनांक 23.02.2026 के ृत्र सं्‍या 97/सीओ-4/2026-डी द्वारा दकए गए अनुरोध ृर झारखंड राज् य सरकार

की अजधसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-407/2026-1398/रांची, ददनांक 27.02.26, गृह, कारागार और आृदा

प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से श्री संजीव कुमार, वररष्ठ डीईई(जी), ृूवड मध्य रेलवे, डीआरएम कायाडलय,

धनबाद के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 (संिोधन अजधजनयम, 2018) की धारा 7 के तहत दंडनीय

अृराधों के जलए ददनांक 06.03.2026 को ृंजीकृत आरसी 02(ए)/2026-डी में, साथ ही इस मामले के अन्वेषण के

दौरान प्रकाि में आए दकसी अन्य अृराधों सजहत ऐसे एक या उससे अजधक अृराधों से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी अन्य अृराध(धों)

के जलए ृंजीकरण और अन्वेषण करने हेतु ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का

जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से, ददनांक 06.03.2026 से) समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/31/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2026

S.O. 1782.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-407/2026-1398/Ranchi, Dated 27.02.26,

Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made via letter number 97/CO-4/2026-D, dated

23.02.2026 of Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to the members of

Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole state of Jharkhand (ex post facto w.e.f 06.03.2026) for registration

and investigation in RC 02(A)/2026-D registered on 06.03.2026 against Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Sr. DEE(G), East

Central Railway, DRM Office, Dhanbad for the offences punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018) and any other offence that may come to light during investigation of this case,

including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more such offences and/or

any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/31/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secretary

नई ददल्ली, 7 अप्रजल, 2026

का.आ. 1783.— केन् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ददल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25)

की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए,िाखा प्रमुख, सीबीआई, एसीबी,

धनबाद के ददनांक 27.02.2026 के ृत्र सं्‍या 102/सीओ-5/2026-डी द्वारा दकए गए अनुरोध ृर झारखंड राज् य सरकार

की अजधसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.- 409/2026-1530/रांची, ददनांक 10.03.26, गृह, कारागार और आृदा

प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से, श्री रवीर कुमार, जे. ई. इलेजक्रकल, भोजुडीह, बोकारो, आरा मंडल,

दजक्षण-ृूवड रेलवे के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम, 1988 (संिोजधत अजधजनयम, 2018) की धारा 7 के तहत

दंडनीय अृराधों के जलए ददनांक 16.03.2026 को ृंजीकृत आरसी 03(ए)/2026-डी में, साथ ही इस मामले के अन्वेषण

के दौरान प्रकाि में आए दकन्हीं अन्य अृराध एवं ऐसे एक या उससे अजधक अृराधों से जुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं उसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकन्हीं अन्य अृराध(धों) के

ृंजीकरण एवं अन्वेषण करने हेतु ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार

(कायोत्तर प्रभाव से, ददनांक 16.03.2026 से) समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/35/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

9426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2026

S.O. 1783.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-409/2026-1530/Ranchi, Dated 10.03.26,

Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made via letter number 102/CO-5/2026-D, dated

27/02/2026 of Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Dhanbad, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction to the members of

Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole state of Jharkhand (ex post facto w.e.f. 16.03.2026) for registration

and investigation in RC 03(A)/2026-D registered on 16.03.2026 against Shri Ravindra Kumar, J.E Electrical,

Bhojudih, Bokaro, Adra Division, SE Railway for the offences punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018) and any other offence that may come to light during investigation of

this case, including any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one or more such

offences and for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/35/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

नई ददल्ली, 8 अप्रजल, 2026

का.आ. 1784.—केन् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ददल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 की

अजधजनयम सं. 25) की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए हररयाणा राज् य

सरकार की अजधसूचना सं. 61/16/2026-2VII, चंडीगढ़, ददनांक 25.03.2026, सतकडता जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी

सम्मजत से, अजभकजथत प ृ से सुजनयोजजत तरीके से धोखाधड़ी ृूणड बैंककग संचालन और काल्ृजनक लेन-देन द्वारा सरकारी

धन को स्ट्वाजस्ट्तक देि प्रोजेक्ट, एसआरआर प्लासनग गुरुज प्रा. जल., कजृ को दफनटेक सर्थवसेज, आर.एस. रेडसड, औऱ अन्य

संबद्ध फमों/व्यजियों सजहत िेल संस्ट्थाओं के खातों में स्ट्थानांतररत कर सरकारी धन के दुरुृयोग और व्याृक स्ट्तर ृर,

संगर त और वहुस्ट्तरीय धोखाधड़ी करने, जजसके ृररणाम स्ट्वप ृ सरकारी खजाने को लगभग 550 करोड़ रुृए से भी

अजधक की भारी हाजन ृहुेँची, से जुड़े गंभीर आरोृों के संबंध में एसवी और एसीबी, ृंचकुला थाना में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजधजनयम, 1988 (2018 में यथासंिोजधत) की धारा 13(2) सृर त धारा 13(1)(ए) और भारतीय न्याय संजहता, 2023

की धाराएेँ 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) और 61(2) के तहत दजड मामला एफआईआर सं. 04, ददनांक

23.02.2026 में अन्वेषण करने के प्रयोजन से ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजधकार का

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त हररयाणा राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/33/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2026

S.O. 1784.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No.25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Haryana, issued vide Notification No.61/16/2026-2VII, Chandigarh, Dated 25.03.2026,

Vigilance Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana for the purpose of investigation into a case FIR No. 04 dated

23.02.2026 registered at Police Station, SV&ACB, Panchkula under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2)

of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 involving serious allegations of misappropriation of Government funds and a

large-scale, organized, and multi-layered fraud pertaining to fraudulent banking operations and fictitious transactions

allegedly undertaken in a systematic manner to siphon off Government funds into the accounts of shell entities,

including Swastik Desh Project, SRR Planning Gurus Pvt. Ltd., Cap Co Fintech Services, R.S. Traders, and other

associated firms/individuals, resulting in a substantial loss to the public exchequer, estimated to exceed ₹ 550 crores.

[F. No. 228/33/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9427

नई ददल्ली, 9 अप्रजल, 2026

का.आ. 1785.— केन् रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, ददल् ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट् थाृन अजधजनयम, 1946 (1946 का केन्रीय

अजधजनयम XXV) की धारा 5 की उृ-धारा (1) सृर त धारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, िाखा प्रमुख,

सीबीआई, एसीबी, रांची के ददनांक 26.02.2026 के ृत्र सं्‍या 102/आर द्वारा दकए गए अनुरोध ृर झारखंड राज् य

सरकार की अजधसूचना ज्ञाृन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-408/2026-1535, रांची, ददनांक 10.03.26, गृह, कारागार और

आृदा प्रबंधन जवभाग के माध्यम से जारी सम्मजत से, श्री जहमांिु िेखर, मु्‍य वाजणजज्यक जनरीक्षक, दजक्षण ृूवड रेलवे,

रांची मंडल, भारतीय रेलवे, रेल मंत्रालय के जवरुद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजधजनयम-1988 (2018 में यथा संिोजधत) की

धारा 7 के तहत अृराध काररत करने के जलए ददनांक 25.03.2026 को ृंजीकृत आरसी0242026ए0005 में, साथ ही

इस मामले के अन्वेषण के दौरान प्रकाि में आए दकन्हीं अन्य अृराधों एवं ऐसे एक या उससे अजधक अृराधों से जुड़े या

उससे संबद्ध दकसी दु्‍प्रयास, दु्‍प्रेरणा और षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यवहार में दकए गए या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उत्ृन्न दकसी

अन्य अृराध(धों) के ृंजीकरण और अन्वेषण करने के जलए ददल्ली जविेष ृुजलस स्ट्थाृन के सदस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजधकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से, ददनांक 25.03.2026 से) झारखंड राज्य में करती हज।

[फा. सं. 228/37/2026-एवीडी-II]

सत्यम श्रीवास्ट्तव, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 9th April, 2026

S.O. 1785.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Central Act XXV of 1946), the Central Government with the consent

of the State Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-408/2026-1535, Ranchi, Dated

10.03.26, Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department upon request made vide letter number 102/R, dated

26.02.2026 of Head of Branch, CBI, ACB, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of all the members of

Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State of Jharkhand (ex post facto w.e.f. 25.03.2026) for registration and

investigation in RC0242026A0005 registered on 25.03.2026 against Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Chief Commercial

Inspector, S.E. Rly., Ranchi Division, Indian Railways, Ministry of Railways for committing offence u/s 7 of PC Act-

1988 (As amended in 2018) and any other offences that may come to light during investigation of this case including

any attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation or in connection with one or more such offences and/or any other

offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/37/2026-AVD-II]

SATYAM SRIVASTAVA, Under Secy.

सूक्ष् म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यम मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 4 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1786.— केंरीय सरकार, सरकारी स्ट्थान (अप्राजधकृत अजधभोजगयों की बेदखली) अजधजनयम, 1971

(1971 का 40) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार के सूक्ष्म, लघु और मध्यम उद्यम

मंत्रालय की अजधसूचना सं्‍यांक का.आ. 1008, तारीख 6 नवम्बर 2020, जो भारत के राजृत्र, भाग -2, खंड-3, उृखंड

(ii) में तारीख 14 नवम्बर, 2020 को प्रकाजित हुई थी, को उन बातों के जसवाय अजधक्रांत करते हुए, जजन्हें ऐसे अजधक्रमण

से ृूवड दकया गया हज या करने का लोृ दकया गया हज, नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (1) में उजल्लजखत अजधकारी को जो

केंरीय सरकार में राजृजत्रत अजधकारी की श्रेणी के समतुल्य ृद का अजधकारी हज, को उि अजधजनयम के प्रयोजन के जलए

संृदा अजधकारी के प ृ में जनयुि करती हज तथा यह और जनदेि देती हज दक उि अजधकारी प्रदत्त िजियों का प्रयोग करेगा

और उि सारणी के स्ट्तंभ (2) में जवजनर्ददष्ट सरकारी स्ट्थान के संबंध में अजधकाररता की स्ट्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उि

अजधजनयम के अधीन या द्वारा संृदा अजधकारी ृर अजधरोजृत कतडव्यों का ृालन करेगाैः-

सारणी

अजधकारी का ृदनाम

सरकारी स्ट्थानों और अजधकाररता की स्ट्थानीय सीमा के

प्रवगड

(1)

(2)

श्री अरुण कुमार ससह,

ज्येष्ठ महाप्रबंधक,

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड के राष्ट्रीय राजधानी

राज्यक्षेत्र ददल्ली और उृाबंध में यथाउजल्लजखत अन्य

9428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

नई ददल्ली I

स्ट्थानों जहां इसमें जोनल कायाडलय, िाखा और उृ-िाखा

कायाडलय और तकनीकी सेवा केंर जस्ट्थत हैं, में अृने

स्ट्वाजमत्व वाले या समय-समय ृर ृट्टे ृर जलया गया

ृररसर।

उृाबंध

क्र.सं.

कायाडलय

ृता

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

कॉृोरेट कायाडलय

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

(भारत सरकार का उद्यम)

एनएसआईसी भवन ,

ओखला इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, नई ददल्ली-110 020

फोन: 011-26926275, 26926370

टोल फ्री नंबर- 1800111955

ईमेल: [email protected]

वेबसाइट: www.nsic.co.in

2.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय ददल्ली

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय ददल्ली, तकनीकी सेवा केंर ृररसर, ओखला

इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, नई ददल्ली- 110020

फोन - 011 - 40584930

ईमेल - [email protected]

3.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी जबजनेस ृाकड, ओखला इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

नई ददल्ली – 110020

फोन - 011 – 26926275

4.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- नोएडा

III-बी/118, सेक्टर – 18 िॉसृग कॉम्प्लेक्स, नोएडा (उत्तर

प्रदेि)– 201301

फोन - 0120 - 4595000 से 4595045, 2511798

ईमेल - [email protected]

5.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- देहरादून

तीसरी और चौथी मंजजल, मेफेयर जबजनेस ृाकड, होटल ग्लोरी

के ृास, माजरा, सहारनृुर रोड, देहरादून, जृनकोड –

248001

फोन - 0135 - 2520501

ईमेल - [email protected]

6.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- आगरा

307/टी-6, तीसरा तल, मारुजत प्लाजा, (संजय टॉकीज के ृीछे),

संजय प्लेस, आगरा, उत्तर प्रदेि,

जृनकोड – 282002

फोन - 0562 - 2527862, 2525567

ईमेल - [email protected]

7.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - आगरा

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9429

इकाई सं्‍या-202, दूसरा तल, सेक्टर-12 ए, ृदम जबजनेस ृाकड,

आवास जवकास, जसकंदरा योजना, आगरा, उत्तर प्रदेि

जृनकोड – 282007

फोन - 0562 - 2603131

ईमेल - [email protected]

8.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- कानृुर

112/1, बेनाझाबर रोड, कानृुर, उत्तर प्रदेि

जृनकोड – 208002

फोन - 0512 - 2535049, 2556379

ईमेल - [email protected]

9.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- गोरखृुर

उृ िाखा, डीआईसी ृररसर, गोरखृुर इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

गोरखृुर, उत्तर प्रदेि, जृनकोड – 273015

मोबाइल- 7524043999

ईमेल - sogorakhpur@nsic.co.in

10.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- वाराणसी

एनएसआईसी जलजमटेड, मानसरोवर कॉम्प्लेक्स, सी-30/35-बी,

दूसरा तल, मलदजहया, वाराणसी,

उत्तर प्रदेि, जृनकोड – 221001

फोन - 542 - 2370223

ईमेल - [email protected]

11.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय-लखनऊ /एसबीओ/एसजेडओ,

503, श्री राम टावर, 5वीं मंजजल, 13, अिोक मागड,

लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रदेि, जृनकोड – 226001

फोन - 0522 - 2288803

ईमेल - [email protected]

12.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- ददल्ली

एनटीएससी कॉम्प्लेक्स, ओखला इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, गोसवदृुरी

मेरो स्ट्टेिन के ृास, नई ददल्ली-110020

फोन - 011 - 26382568-69, 41002319

ईमेल - [email protected]

13.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- फरीदाबाद

107 जनसान हट एनएच-5 रेलवे रोड फरीदाबाद, जृनकोड -

121001

फोन - 0129 - 2985910/2985912/2985911

ईमेल - [email protected]

14.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- गुरुग्राम,

प्लॉट सं्‍या 69, ृहला तल, आईडीसी, सेक्टर-16, एमजी रोड,

गुरुग्राम

जृनकोड – 122001

9430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

फोन - 0124 - 2308913

ईमेल - [email protected]

15.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- सेन् रल ददल् ली नारायणा

सीबी-326, दूसरा तल, ररग रोड, नारायणा, नई ददल्ली

जृनकोड – 110028

फोन - 011 - 64611484, 25775787

ईमेल - [email protected]

16.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- नजनी

इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, उद्योग नगर, नजनी, प्रयागराज,

जृनकोड – 211009

फोन - 0532 - 2697218/2697050, 2695847

ईमेल – [email protected]

17.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- अलीगढ़

एनएसआईसी तकनीकी सेवा केन् र, ए-।

इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, अलीगढ़, उत् तर प्रदेि

जृनकोड – 202001

फोन – 9810038916

ईमेल – [email protected]

18.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय लुजधयाना

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड ,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय- लुजधयाना

गुरु गोसबद ससह टावर, ढोलेवाल चौक के ृास जीटी रोड-

लुजधयाना, जृनकोड – 141003

फोन - 0161 - 2541946, 2530940, 2546523

ईमेल - [email protected]

19.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- चंडीगढ़

ग्राउंड फ्लोर, बीएसएनएल एडजमन जबसल्डग सेक्टर-34-ए,

जृकजजडली जसनेमा के सामने, चंडीगढ़ (यूटी),

जृनकोड – 160022

फोन - 0172 - 2610537, 2971759

ईमेल - [email protected]

20.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- लुजधयाना

गुरु गोसबद ससह टावर, ढोलेवाल चौक के ृास, जीटी रोड,

लुजधयाना, जृनकोड – 141003

फोन - 0161 - 2541946/2530940/2546523

ईमेल - [email protected]

21.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय, लुजधयाना

ृहला तल, फ्रंरटयर टॉवर, जीटी रोड, जमलर गंज (फायर जिगेड

कायाडलय के ृास), लुजधयाना , जृनकोड – 141003

फोन - 0161 - 4100939

ईमेल - [email protected]

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9431

22.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- जालंधर

दूसरा तल, एससीओ-21, ृुडा कॉम्प्लेक्स, लाडोवाली रोड,

जालंधर - 144001

फोन - 0181 - 2292242, 2295533, 6570257

ईमेल - [email protected]

23.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय कोलकाता

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय-कोलकाता

प्लॉट सं्‍या 7/7 और 7/8, ब्लॉक –सीृी, साल्ट लेक,

सेक्टर –V, कोलकाता (ृजिमी बंगाल), जृनकोड – 700091

फोन - 033 - 23672001, 29861253

ईमेल – [email protected]

24.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- ृटना

फ्लजट सं्‍या 403, चौथा तल , श्याम दकिोरी होम्स, राजस्ट्थान

रेस्ट्टोरेंट के ृीछे, डाक बंगला चौराहा, फ्रेजर रोड, ृटना,

जृनकोड – 800001

फोन - 0612 - 2354222, 3212403

ईमेल - [email protected]

25.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एसी-एसटी हब कायाडलय, बोध गया मगध यूजनवर्थसटी

कजम् ृस, बोध गया,

जजला- गया जी, जबहार, जृनकोड – 824234

मोबाइल – 9760100565

ईमेल - [email protected]

26.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- कोलकाता

20-बी, अब्दुल हाजमद स्ट्रीट, (7वीं मंजजल),

कोलकाता, जृनकोड – 700069

फोन - 033 - 033-2213-7084/2248-8288

ईमेल - [email protected]

27.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - कोलकाता

प्लॉट सं्‍या 7/7 और 7/8, ब्लॉक–सीृी, साल्ट लेक,

सेक्टर –V, कोलकाता (ृजिमी बंगाल), जृनकोड – 700091

फोन - 033 - 23672001, 29861253

ईमेल - [email protected]

28.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- साल्ट लेक

प्लॉट नंबर - 7/7 और 7/8, ब्लॉक - सीृी, सेक्टर - V,

साल्ट लेक, कोलकाता, जृनकोड - 700091

फोन - 033 - 23671471 / 23670155 / 23672416

ईमेल - [email protected]

29.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय भुवनेश्वर

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय भुवनेश्वर

304-बी, तीसरा तल, एनएसआईसी-आईएमडीसी धमडृद भवन,

आईडीसीओ प्लॉट सं्‍या 6 ब्लॉक-डी, मंचेश्वर इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

9432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

भुवनेश्वर, जृनकोड – 751010

फोन - 0674 - 2548875 / 6510189

ईमेल - [email protected]

30.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय-भुवनेश्वर

मॉड्यूल सं्‍या 204, दूसरा तल, एनएसआईसी-आईएमडीसी

धमडृद भवन, आईडीसीओ प्लॉट सं्‍या 6 ब्लॉक-डी, मंचेश्वर

इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, भुवनेश्वर,

जृनकोड – 751010

फोन - 0674 - 2583182 / 2580780

ईमेल - [email protected]

31.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एसी-एसटी हब कायाडलय, भुवनेश्वर

304-बी, तीसरा तल, एनएसआईसी-आईएमडीसी धमडृद भवन,

आईडीसीओ प्लॉट सं्‍या 6 ब्लॉक-डी, मंचेश्वर इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

भुवनेश्वर, जृनकोड – 751010

फोन - 0674 – 0674-2580630

ईमेल - [email protected]

32.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- राउरकेला

प्लॉट नंबर क्यूक्यूक्यू-6, जसजवल टाउनजिृ, राउरकेला, जृनकोड

– 769012

फोन - 0661 - 2664459

ईमेल - [email protected]

33.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- जमिेदृुर

फ्लजट सं्‍या ए-2/1, दूसरा तल, जनरोड अृाटडमेंट, एल-रोड, ृीओ

और ृीएस जबष्टुृुर, जमिेदृुर, जृनकोड – 831001

फोन - 0657 - 2320068

ईमेल - [email protected]

34.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- बोकारो, जृन कोड- 827012

मोबाइल - 9431923065

ईमेल - [email protected]

35.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय/ राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - रांची

उद्योग भवन, औद्योजगक क्षेत्र कोकर, रांची

जृनकोड – 834001

फोन - 0651 - 2543921

ईमेल - [email protected]

36.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय गुवाहाटी

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय-गुवाहाटी

बाई लेन सं्‍या 3, इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट बामुनीमजदान, गुवाहाटी,

जृनकोड – 781021

फोन - 0361 - 2960635

ईमेल - [email protected]

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9433

37.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- गुवाहाटी

इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, तीसरी बाई लेन, बामुनीमजदान, गुवाहाटी,

जृनकोड – 781021

फोन - 0361 - 2960631

ईमेल - [email protected]

38.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय, गुवाहाटी

इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, बाई लेन सं. 3, बामुनीमजदान, गुवाहाटी,

जृनकोड – 781021

फोन - 0361 - 2558947

ईमेल - [email protected]

39.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- अगरतला

आईटीआई रोड, युवा संस्ट्था क्लब के ृास, जिक्षा जनकेतन स्ट्कूल

रोड की ओर, इंरानगर, अगरतला, जत्रृुरा, जृनकोड – 799006

फोन - 0381 - 2911763, 9411630450

ईमेल - [email protected]

40.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- इंफाल

उरीृोक अचोम लेइकाई, इंफाल (मजणृुर),

जृनकोड – 795001

फोन - 0385 - 2414270, 9401726718

ईमेल - [email protected]

41.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- दीमाृुर

आवसड जबसल्डग, दूसरा तल, नंबर-411, डी.सी. कोटड जंक्िन,

दीमाृुर, जृनकोड – 797112

मोबाइल—9905082471

ईमेल - [email protected]

42.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय मुंबई

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय-मुंबई

कायाडलय सं्‍या 505, ृांचवीं मंजजल, जमत्तल कमर्थियल

जबसल्डग, सवग – बी, गांव मरोल, एम.वी. रोड के ृास, अंधेरी

(ृूवड), मुंबई, जृनकोड – 400059

फोन - 022 - 28500377

ईमेल - [email protected]

43.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- मुंबई

ृी/104, खजराने एमआईडीसी, टीटीसी औद्योजगक क्षेत्र,

कोृरखजराने, नवी मुंबई, जृनकोड – 400710

फोन - 022 – 23740268, 23740272, 23740116

ईमेल - [email protected]

44.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- अंधेरी मुंबई

5सी2, 5वीं मंजजल ए-सवग, गुंडेचा ओन्क्लेव, खेरानी रोड,

साकीनाका, अंधेरी (ृूवड), मुंबई, जृनकोड-400072

9434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

फोन - 022 - 2850 9915 / 16

ईमेल - [email protected]

45.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- नागृुर

नई सजचवालय जबसल्डग, ृहली मंज़िल, ईस्ट्ट सवग, वीसीए

स्ट्टेजडयम के सामने, सेंट उसुडला स्ट्कूल के ृास, जसजवल लाइंस,

नागृुर, जृनकोड – 440001

फोन - 0712 - 2543254, 2552023

ईमेल - [email protected]

46.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- छत्रृजत संभाजीनगर

ृहला तल, मॉड्यूल हाउस, मेस बंगले के सामने महावीर चौक,

छत्रृजत संभाजीनगर, जृनकोड – 431005

फोन - 0240 - 2954395

ईमेल - [email protected]

47.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- नाजसक

गल्ला नंबर 13, तीसरी मंजजल उद्योग भवन, एमआईडीसी,

सतृुर, नाजसक, जृनकोड – 422007

फोन - 0253 - 2365059

ईमेल - [email protected]

48.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- ृुणे

211/212, दूसरा तल, टाइम्स स्ट्वायर जबसल्डग, ृुणे-सतारा रोड,

साईं बाबा मंददर के ृास, ृुणे , जृनकोड – 411037

फोन - 020 - 24273800/24274800/48620207

ईमेल - [email protected]

49.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - ृुणे

213, दूसरा तल, ृुणे - सतारा रोड, साईं बाबा मंददर के ृास,

स्ट्वगेट, ृुणे , जृनकोड – 411037

फोन - 020 - 48620209

ईमेल - [email protected]

50.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - ससधुदुगड

प्लॉट सं्‍या -16, नवनगर जवकास प्राजधकरण, ससधुदुगडनगरी के

ृास, ओरोस जजला, लैंडमाकड बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के ृास, ससधुदुगड,

महाराष्ट्र, जृनकोड - 416812

मोबाइल - 9673511536

ईमेल - [email protected]

51.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - मुंबई

कायाडलय सं. 505, 5वीं मंजजल, बी-सवग, जमत्तल कमर्थियल

जबसल्डग, गांव मरोल, एम.वी. रोड, मरोल नाका, अंधेरी (ृूवड),

मुंबई - 400 059

फोन - 022 - 49710065 / 23728902

ईमेल - [email protected]

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9435

52.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय-गोवा

उृ िाखा प्लॉट सं्‍या एससी - 1/47, वनाड इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

वनाड, साउथ गोवा, गोवा, जृनकोड – 403001

फोन - 0832 - 2220540

ईमेल - [email protected]

53.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय अहमदाबाद

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय-अहमदाबाद

202, 203, समृजद्ध जबसल्डग, गुजरात हाई कोटड के सामने,

अहमदाबाद, जृनकोड – 380014

फोन - 079 - 27543228/27544893/27544254

ईमेल - [email protected]

54.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय-अहमदाबाद

202-203, समृजद्ध जबसल्डग, साकार-III के सामने, इनकम टजक्स

सकडल के ृास, आश्रम रोड, अहमदाबाद, जृनकोड – 380014

फोन - 079 - 27543228/27544893/27544254

ईमेल - [email protected]

55.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय-जयृुर

एनएफ/0/2, नेहप प्लेस, टोंक रोड, जयृुर

जृनकोड – 302015

फोन – 0141-2740191/2742991/2742372/2744899

ईमेल - [email protected]

56.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- कोटा

एसएसआई एसोजसएिन, ृुरुषाथड भवन, आईृीआईए,

रोड सं. 5, कोटा, जृनकोड – 324005

फोन - 744 - 2426104

ईमेल - [email protected]

57.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- जयृुर वीकेआईए

513, अलंकार प्लाजा, सेंरल स्ट्ृाइन, सेक्टर-02, जवद्याधर नगर,

जयृुर, जृनकोड – 302039

फोन - 0141 - 2231594, 2231573

ईमेल - [email protected]

58.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय रायृुर

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय-रायृुर

204, दूसरा तल, ब्लॉक-ए, दक्रस्ट्टल आकेड, लोधीृारा चौक के

ृास, िंकर नगर, रायृुर- 492007

फोन - 0771 - 4035388, 4006070

ईमेल - [email protected]

59.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- इंदौर

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड, 10, ृोलोग्राउंड इंडजस्ट्रयल

एस्ट्टेट, इंदौर, जृनकोड – 452015

फोन - 0731 - 2424408 - 2424409 - 2422248

ईमेल - [email protected]

9436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

60.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- भोृाल

110, मालवीय नगर, ृहला तल, भोृाल

जृनकोड – 462003

फोन - 0755- 4295152, 0755-2992944

ईमेल - [email protected]

61.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- रायृुर

204, दूसरा तल, ब्लॉक-ए, दक्रस्ट्टल आकेड, लोधीृारा चौक के

ृास, िंकर नगर, रायृुर , जृनकोड – 492007

फोन - 0771 - 4035388, 4006070

ईमेल - [email protected]

62.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय/उृ िाखा कायाडलय - सूरत

306, तीसरा तल, राजहंस जबसल्डग,

जे.के टॉवर के सामने,

ररग रोड, सूरत, जृनकोड – 395002

फोन - 0261 - 2345733, 4029735

ईमेल - [email protected]

63.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय बेंगलुरु

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय बैंगलोर

सं्‍या 25, ृहली मेन रोड, केएसएसआईडीसी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

छ वां ब्लॉक राजाजी नगर, बेंगलुप , जृनकोड – 560010

फोन - 080 - 23109059, 23307791, 23147858

ईमेल – [email protected]

64.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- बेलगाम

प्लॉट सं्‍या 60, अनुजय जबसल्डग, ृांचवां क्रॉस, सुभाष-चंर

नगर, बेलगाम फाउंड्री क्लस्ट्टर के सामने, उत्सव होटल के ृास,

उद्यमबाग, बेलगाम-कनाडटक , जृनकोड – 590006

फोन - 0831 - 2449922

ईमेल - [email protected]

65.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - बैंगलोर

सं. 6 और 7, आईएसआईसीओएस जबसल्डग, कॉडड रोड के ृजिम

में, राजाजी नगर, औद्योजगक नगर, बेंगलुप , जृनकोड –

560044

फोन - 080 - 23147791 / 29777790

ईमेल - [email protected]

66.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय -बैंगलोर

सं्‍या 25, ृहली मेन रोड, केएसएसआईडीसी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

छ वां ब्लॉक राजाजीनगर, बेंगलुप , जृनकोड – 560010

फोन - 080 - 23109059, 23307791,23147858

ईमेल - [email protected]

67.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय -ृीन्या

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9437

सी-424, ृीन्या इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, ृहला स्ट्टेज, ृीन्या ृुजलस

स्ट्टेिन के ृीछे, बेंगलुप , जृनकोड – 560058

फोन - 080 - 28374676, 28394576, 28372977

ईमेल - [email protected]

68.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय हजदराबाद

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय-हजदराबाद

201, 203, श्री दत्तासाई कॉम्प्लेक्स, आरटीसी क्रॉस रोड्स,

हजदराबाद, जृनकोड – 500020

फोन - 040-27622515 / 040-27615761

ईमेल - [email protected]

69.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- हजदराबाद

203 और 303, श्री दत्तासाई कॉम्प्लेक्स, आरटीसी क्रॉस रोड्स,

हजदराबाद , जृनकोड – 500020

फोन - 040-27615764 / 27615761 / 27622097.

ईमेल - [email protected]

70.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- जवजयवाड़ा

डी. सं. 59 ए-8/8- 6बी/1, तृतीय तल, मेन रोड, गुरुनानक

कॉलोनी, जवजयवाड़ा, जृनकोड – 520008

फोन - 0866 - 2541055

ईमेल - [email protected]

71.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- जविाखाृत्तनम

डी. सं. 32-6-1/13/49, फ्लजट सं. 107, प्रथम तल, लैंडमाकड

एमबीआर, िीला नगर, जविाखाृत्तनम, जृनकोड – 530012

फोन - 0891 - 2758554

ईमेल - [email protected]

72.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- बालानगर

6-3-144,144/1, तीसरा तल, जहाेँआरा करीम कॉम्प्लेक्स,

बालानगर, हजदराबाद, जृनकोड – 500037

फोन - 040 - 23324769

ईमेल - [email protected]

73.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - हजदराबाद

एनएसआईसी तकनीकी सेवा केंर इलेक्रॉजनक कॉम्प्लेक्स

कमलानगर, हजदराबाद, जृनकोड – 500062

फोन - 040 - 29559801

ईमेल - [email protected]

74.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय टीएससी-हजदराबाद

एनएसआईसी तकनीकी सेवा केंर, कमलानगर,

ईसीआईएल ृोस्ट् ट, हजदराबाद, जृनकोड – 500062

फोन - 040 – 27121422 2712 6646

ईमेल - [email protected]

9438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

75.

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय चेन्नई

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

क्षेत्रीय कायाडलय-चेन्नई

मॉड्यूल सं. 201, एनएसआईसी – सॉफ्टवेयर टेक्नोलॉजी

जबजनेस ृाकड, गुइंडी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, एक्कट्टुथंगल,

चेन्नई – 600 032, जृनकोड-600006

फोन - 044 - 2829 1943, 2829 4541

ईमेल - [email protected]

76.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- चेन्नई

मॉड्यूल 205, एनएसआईसी सॉफ्टवेयर टेक्नोलॉजी ृाकड जबसल्डग,

गुइंडी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, एक्कट्टुथंगल, चेन्नई, जृनकोड –

600032

फोन - 044 - 28293347/28294541

ईमेल - [email protected]

77.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

राष्ट्रीय एससी-एसटी हब कायाडलय - चेन्नई

एमएसएमई-डीआई ृररसर, सं. 65/1, जीएसटी रोड, गुइंडी,

चेन्नई, तजमलनाडु, जृनकोड – 600032

फोन - 044 - 48631200

ईमेल - [email protected]

78.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- अंबत्तूर

309 जसडको-ऐमा टावसड, फस्ट्टड मेन रोड, अंबत्तूर इंडजस्ट्रयल

एस्ट्टेट, चेन्नई, जृनकोड – 600058

फोन - 044 - 26243984, 28291292

ईमेल - [email protected]

79.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- ृुदुचेरी

प्रिासजनक भवन, इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, थट्टांचावडी,

ृुदुचेरी - 605 009

फोन - 0413 - 2248970, 2248940

ईमेल - [email protected]

80.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- मदुरई

74, एडीआर टॉवर प्रथम तल, कलावसल, थेनी मेन रोड, मदुरई,

जृनकोड - 625016,

फोन - 0452-2609992, 2609993, 4984191

ईमेल - [email protected]

81.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- कोयंबटूर

1055/10, गौथम सेंटर, अवनािी रोड, कोयंबटूर

जृनकोड – 641018,

फोन - 0422 - 2244618, 2247757

ईमेल - [email protected]

82.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

िाखा कायाडलय- कोचीन

एनएसआईसी जलजमटेड, एस-67, जीसीडीए कमर्थियल

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9439

कॉम्प्लेक्स, मरीन ड्राइव, िनमुघम रोड, कोजच्च

जृनकोड - 682031,

फोन – 0484-2381850/2368149/2986107/2351440

ईमेल - [email protected]

83.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड,

उृ िाखा कायाडलय- जत्रिूर

(अय्यनथोल ृोस्ट्ट ऑदफस के सामने) अय्यनथोल, जत्रिूर

जृनकोड – 680003

मोबाइल- 9895571743

ईमेल - in.co.nsic@sbothrissur

84.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम प्रोद्योजगकी

केंर

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

प्रजिक्षण केंर, मंडी

# 210/12, राम नगर (ृुलघराट), मंडी, जजला मंडी (जहमाचल

प्रदेि), जृनकोड – 175001

मोबाइल- 9816071471

ईमेल- [email protected]

85.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

आजीजवका व्यवसाय इनक्यूबेटर- देवररया ,

कौिल चंर टॉवर, प्रथम और जद्वतीय तल, 319/1, ररलायंस

स्ट्माटड प्वाइंट के ऊृर, सीसी रोड, देवररया,

उत्तर प्रदेि, जृनकोड – 274001

मोबाइल- 8009477301

ईमेल- [email protected]

86.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी- प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर और एलबीआई – बोधगया

मगध जवश्वजवद्यालय ृररसर, ृीजी सहदी जवभाग के ृास,

बोधगया, जबहार-824234

मोबाइल- 8697887899

ईमेल - [email protected]

87.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-नीमका

सेक्टर-71, जतगांव रोड, नीमका, फरीदाबाद,

हररयाणा, जृनकोड – 121004

फोन - 0129 - 2401101

ईमेल - [email protected]

88.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एसटीबीृी-चेन्नई

बी-24, गुइंडी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, एक्कादुथंगल, चेन्नई, जृनकोड –

600032

फोन - 044 - 22250444, 22250445

ईमेल - [email protected]

89.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-ओखला

ओखला इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, नई ददल्ली , जृनकोड – 110020

फोन - 011 - 26826801, 26826847, 26826846

ईमेल - [email protected]

9440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

90.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-चेन्नई

सेक्टर बी-24, गुइंडी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट एक्कादुथंगल ृीओ, चेन्नई,

जृनकोड – 600032

फोन - 044 - 22252335/6/7

ईमेल - [email protected]

91.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-हावड़ा

जाृानी गेट, बाजलरटकुरी, हावड़ा, जृनकोड – 711113

फोन - 033 - 26530304/26532962/26534280

ईमेल - [email protected]

92.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-राजकोट

भावनगर रोड, अजी औद्योजगक क्षेत्र,

राजकोट, जृनकोड – 360003

फोन - 0281 - 2387396/97/98

ईमेल - [email protected]

93.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-हजदराबाद

कमलानगर, ईसीआईएल ृोस्ट्ट, हजदराबाद, जृनकोड – 500062

फोन - 40 - 27121422, 27126646, 27134025,

27124597

ईमेल - [email protected]

94.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-अलीगढ़

ए-1 इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट अलीगढ़, जृनकोड – 202001

फोन - 0571 - 2403552

ईमेल - [email protected]

95.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-राजृुरा

डी-82/83, फोकल प्वाइंट, राजृुरा

जृनकोड – 140401,

फोन - 01762 - 232669

ईमेल - [email protected]

96.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

एनएसआईसी प्रोद्योजगकी सेवा केंर-सडडीगुल

िेड 27,29 और 30 जसडको इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, सडडीगुल

तजमलनाडु, जृनकोड – 624003

फोन - 0451 - 2911165

ईमेल - [email protected]

97.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

ईएमडीबीृी हजदराबाद

मॉड्यूल नं. 207, कमलानगर, ईसीआईएल ृोस्ट्ट, हजदराबाद,

जृनकोड – 500062

फोन - 040 - 27141422, 27125802

ईमेल - [email protected]

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9441

98.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

आजीजवका व्यवसाय इनक्यूबेटर (एलबीआई) - कािीृुर

बी-1, बी-5, औद्योजगक क्षेत्र, बाजृुर रोड, कािीृुर,

जजला – उधम ससह नगर , जृनकोड – 244713

फोन - 5947 - 262453

ईमेल - [email protected]

99.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

जवजध एवं वसूली प्रकोष्ठ-कोलकाता,

कमरा सं. 2/1, जद्वतीय तल, हुडको टॉवर, न्यू माकेट, 15एन,

नेल्ली सेनगुप्ता सेररनी, सलडसे स्ट्रीट कोलकाता 700087

फोन - 033 - 22522232

ईमेल - [email protected]

100.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

आईएमडीसी भुवनेश्वर

आईडीसीओ प्लॉट सं. 6, ब्लॉक डी, मचेश्वर इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

भुवनेश्वर, जृनकोड – 751010

फोन - 0674 - 2548875

ईमेल - [email protected]

101.

राष्ट्रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड

आजीजवका व्यवसाय इनक्यूबेटर - नजनी,

इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, उद्योग नगर, नजनी, प्रयागराज, जृनकोड-

211009

फोन – 0532- 2697218, 2697050

ईमेल - [email protected]

रा्‍ रीय लघु उद्योग जनगम जलजमटेड (NSIC) के स्ट्वाजमत्व वाली अन्य ़िमीन/जबसल्डग

102.

भूजम/भवन का जववरण

ृुडुचेरी, प्लॉट सं. ए-19, ृीआईृीडीआईसी इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट,

सेदारृेट , ृुडुचेरी

103.

प्लॉट सं. बी-38 डी, सेक्टर-57, नोएडा

104.

आवासीय वाटडर

फ्लजट सं. 101, प्रथम तल, बी-सवग, सांताक्रू़ि, चेंबूर सलक रोड,

एमआईजी जबसल्डग, न्यू जतलक नगर, चेंबूर, मुंबई -400089

105.

फ्लजट सं. 102, प्रथम तल, बी-सवग, सांताक्रू़ि, चेंबूर सलक रोड,

एमआईजी जबसल्डग, न्यू जतलक नगर, चेंबूर,

मुंबई -400089

106.

फ्लजट सं. 103 , प्रथम तल, बी-सवग, सांताक्रू़ि, चेंबूर सलक रोड,

एमआईजी जबसल्डग, न्यू जतलक नगर, चेंबूर,

मुंबई -400089

107.

फ्लजट सं.104, प्रथम तल, बी-सवग, सांताक्रू़ि, चेंबूर सलक रोड,

एमआईजी जबसल्डग, न्यू जतलक नगर, चेंबूर,

मुंबई -400089

108.

फ्लजट सं. 1203, बारहवां तल, ए-सवग, सांताक्रू़ि चेंबूर सलक रोड,

न्यू जतलक नगर, चेंबूर, मुंबई-400089

109.

फ्लजट सं. 1204, बारहवां तल, ए-सवग, सांताक्रू़ि चेंबूर सलक रोड,

न्यू जतलक नगर, चेंबूर, मुंबई-400089

110.

फ्लजट सं. 602, छटा तल, जबसल्डग सं. 12, श्री गणेि सीएचएस,

िास्त्री नगर, गोरेगांव (ृजिम), मुंबई 400104

111.

फ्लजट सं. 604, छटा तल, बी-सवग, जबसल्डग सं. 6, वसुंधरा

सीएचएस, िास्त्री नगर, गोरेगांव (ृजिम), मुंबई-400104

9442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

112.

फ्लजट सं, 1250, बारहवां तल, आजाद नगर ृूर्थणमा सीएचएस ,

डी -64, आजाद नगर - 2, वीरा देसाई रोड, अंधेरी (ृजिम),

मुंबई-400053

113.

फ्लजट सं. 1254, बारहवां तल, आजाद नगर ृूर्थणमा सीएचएस ,

डी -64, आजाद नगर - 2, वीरा देसाई रोड, अंधेरी (ृजिम),

मुंबई-400053

114.

फ्लजट सं. सी-75, चौथी मंज़िल, श्री सुंदर अृाटडमेंट, डायमंड

गाडडन के सामने, चेंबूर, मुंबई-400071

115.

फ्लजट सं. 113/3920, प्रथम तल, ओल्ड जतलक नगर, चेंबूर, मुंबई-

400084

116.

फ्लजट सं. ए.एफ -8, दुगाडवाड़ी को-ऑृरेरटव हाउससग सोसाइटी

जलजमटेड, तालेगाओ, गोवा

117.

फ्लजट सं. डीृी42, दुगाडवाड़ी को-ऑृरेरटव हाउससग सोसाइटी

जलजमटेड, तालेगाओ, गोवा

118.

फ्लजट सं. 186-एन-एचआईजी 'सी', तृतीय तल, ब्लॉक सं. 3,

यहालंका , न्यू टाउन, छ वां फेज, बेंगलुरु

119.

फ्लजट सं. 199-एन-एचआईजी 'सी', यहालंका न्यू टाउन, ृांचवां

फेज, बेंगलुरु

120.

फ्लजट सं. ृी-384, जलवायु जवहार, फेज-4, सेक्टर-21, नोएडा

121.

फ्लजट सं. ृी-476, जलवायु जवहार, फेज-4, सेक्टर-21, नोएडा

122.

फ्लजट सं. ृी-299, जलवायु जवहार, फेज-4, सेक्टर-21, नोएडा

123.

फ्लजट सं. क्यू-517, जलवायु जवहार, फेज-4, सेक्टर-21, नोएडा

124.

फ्लजट सं. 45, ब्लॉक सं. 03, एफ.एफ, राजधका जथएटर के सामने,

कुिाईगुडा, हजदराबाद

125.

फ्लजट सं. 36, ब्लॉक सं. 03, जी.एफ, राजधका जथएटर के सामने,

कुिाईगुडा, हजदराबाद

126.

फ्लजट सं. 44, ब्लॉक सं. 03, एफ.एफ, राजधका जथएटर के सामने,

कुिाईगुडा, हजदराबाद

127.

कािीृुर, फ्लजट सं. बी-5, नारायण कुंज कॉलोनी, कािीृुर

128.

कािीृुर,फ्लजट सं. बी-6, नारायण कुंज कॉलोनी, कािीृुर

129.

जयृुर, फ्लजट सं. सी-54 (जी-159) जवाहर नगर, जयृुर

130.

जयृुर, फ्लजट सं. 34/37, जी.एफ, प्रताृ नगर, सांगानेर जयृुर

131.

जयृुर, फ्लजट सं. 34/39 एफ.एफ, प्रताृ नगर, सांगानेर, जयृुर

132.

फ्लजट सं. बी-4/31, गोयल इंटरजसटी, अहमदाबाद

133.

मकान सं. 102/844 जनमडल अृाटडमेंट्स न्यू नांगल सराय,

अहमदाबाद

134.

मकान सं. 113/976 जनमडल अृाटडमेंट्स न्यू नांगल सराय,

अहमदाबाद

135.

फ्लजट सं. 10, प्रथम तल, ब्लॉक सं. 469, नादव्वक्कारी गांव,

एग्मोर , नुंगमबक्कम तालुक, चेन्नई

136.

फ्लजट सं. 8, प्रथम तल, ब्लॉक-ए, भाई रणधीर ससह नगर,

लुजधयाना

137.

ऑदफस स्ट्ृेस

मेससड जसजद्ध एस्ट्टेट ओनसड एसोजसएिन, गुजरात हाई कोटड के

सामने, अहमदाबाद

इकाई सं. जी. 01

इकाई सं. जी. 10

इकाई सं. जी. 11

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9443

इकाई सं. जी. 07

इकाई सं. जी. 08

इकाई सं. जी. 09

138.

सीआईबी/159, ृीओआर- रामांगमडी , इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट

वडोदरा

139.

िेड सं. 101, सीडको इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, मालुजमचमृट्टी,

कायेम् बटूर

140.

िेड सं. सी-20, इंडजस्ट्रयल एस्ट्टेट, थट्टांचावडी, ृुडुचेरी

141.

दुकान सं. 3 और 4, ग्राउंड फ्लोर, इकाई सं. बी-21, 14379, गुप

गोजबन् द ससह टॉवर, ढोलेवाल, जी.टी रोड, लुजधयाना

142.

142, 143 ब् लॉक- सी, एफ.एफ, मौयाड लौक काम् ृलेक् स, ृटना

143.

स्ट् ृेस सं. 02-01, 02-08, 02-27, 02-28, 02-29

(5 सं.), न् यू माकेट, कोलकता

[फा. सं. के-01/4/2020-एसएमई]

अंदकत कुमार अग्रवाल, जनदेिक

MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES

New Delhi, the 4th August, 2026

S.O. 1786.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India

in the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises vide number S.O. 1008, dated the 6th November, 2020,

published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated the 14th November, 2020, except as

respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints the

officer mentioned in column (1) of the Table below, being an officer equivalent to the rank of the Gazetted Officer

of the Central Government to be estate officer for the purpose of the said Act and further directs that the said officer

shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officer by or under the said Act within

the local limits of jurisdiction in respect of public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table below:-

Table

Designation of officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Shri Arun Kumar Singh,

Senior General Manager,

The

National

Small

Industries

Corporation Limited, New Delhi.

Premise owned or taken on lease from time to time by the National

Small Industries Corporation Limited in the National Capital territory of

Delhi and in other places where its Zonal Offices, Branch and Sub-

Branch Offices, Technical Service Centres are situated as mentioned in

Annexure.

Annexure

S. No

Offices

Address

(1)

(2)

(3)

1.

CORPORATE OFFICE

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

(A Government of India Enterprise)

NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate,

New Delhi - 110 020

Tel: 011-26926275, 26926370, Toll free No. 1800111955

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.nsic.co.in

2.

ZONAL OFFICE DELHI

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Zonal Office, Delhi

Technical Services Centre Campus, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi

– 110020.

9444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ph - 011 - 40584930

Email - [email protected]

3.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Business Park, Okhla Industrial Estate,

New Delhi - 110020

Ph - 011 – 26926275

4.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- NOIDA

III-B/118, Sector – 18 Shopping Complex,

Noida (Uttar Pradesh)-201301

Ph - 0120 - 4595000 to 4595045, 2511798

Email - [email protected]

5.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Dehradun

3rd & 4th Floor, Mayfare Business Park, Near Hotel Glory, Majra,

Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. Pincode – 248001

Ph - 0135 - 2520501

Email - [email protected]

6.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Agra

307/T-6, 3rd Floor, Maruti Plaza, (Behind Sanjay Talkies), Sanjay Plaza,

Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

Pincode – 282002

Ph - 0562 - 2527862, 2525567

Email - [email protected]

7.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office-Agra

Unit No.-202, Second Floor, Sector-12A, Padam Business Park, Awas

Vikas, Sikandra Yojana, Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

Pincode – 282007

Ph - 0562 - 2603131

Email - [email protected]

8.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Kanpur

112/1, Benajhabar Road, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

Pincode – 208002

Ph - 0512 - 2535049, 2556379

Email -

bo

[email protected]

9.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office- Gorakhpur

Sub Branch, DIC Campus, Gorakhpur Industrial Estate, Gorakhpur,

Uttar Pradesh, Pincode – 273015

Mob- 7524043999

Email: [email protected]

10.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office- Varanasi

NSIC Ltd., Mansarovar Complex, C-30/35-B,

2nd Floor, Maldhaiya, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

Pincode – 221001

Ph - 542 - 2370223

Email - [email protected]

11.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office- Lucknow/SBO/SZO,

503, Sri Ram Tower, 5th Floor, 13, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, Uttar

Pradesh, Pincode – 226001

Ph - 0522 - 2288803

Email - [email protected]

12.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Delhi.

NTSC Complex, Okhla Industrial Estate, Near Govindpuri Metro

Station, New Delhi-110020

Ph - 011 - 26382568-69, 41002319

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9445

Email - [email protected]

13.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Faridabad

107 Nissan Hut NH-5 Railway Road Faridabad,

Pincode – 121001

Ph - 0129 - 2985910/2985912/2985911

Email: [email protected]

14.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Gurugram

Plot No 69, 1st Floor, IDC, Sector-16, MG Road, Gurugram

Pincode – 122001

Ph - 0124 - 2308913

Email - [email protected]

15.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Central Delhi Naraina

CB-326, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi, Pincode –

110028

Ph - 011 - 64611484, 25775787

Email - [email protected]

16.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Naini

Industrial Estate, Udyog Nagar, Naini, Prayagraj,

Pincode – 211009

Ph - 0532 - 2697218/2697050, 2695847

Email: [email protected]

17.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Sub Branch Office-Aligarh

NSIC Technical Services Centre, A-1 Industrial Estate Aligarh, Uttar

Pradesh, Pincode – 202001

Mob- 9810038916

Email – [email protected]

18.

ZONAL OFFICE LUDHIANA

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office- Ludhiana,

Guru Gobind Singh Tower, Near Dholewal Chowk G T Road- Ludhiana,

Pincode – 141003

Ph - 0161 - 2541946,2530940, 2546523

Email: [email protected]

19.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Chandigarh

Ground Floor, BSNL Admin Building Sector-34-A, Opp-Piccadilly

Cinema, Chandigarh (UT), Pincode – 160022

Ph - 0172 - 2610537, 2971759

Email: [email protected]

20.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Ludhiana

Guru Gobind Singh Tower, Nr. Dholewal

Chowk,Gt Road, Ludhiana, Pincode – 141003

Ph - 0161 - 2541946/2530940/2546523

Email: [email protected]

21.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office- Ludhiana

1st Floor, Frontier Tower, G.T.Road, Miller Ganj (Near Fire Brigade

Office), Ludhiana, Pincode – 141003

Ph - 0161 – 4100939

Email: [email protected]

22.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Jalandhar

2nd Floor, SCO-21, Puda Complex, Ladowali Road,

Jalandhar - 144001.

Ph - 0181 - 2292242, 2295533, 6570257

Email: [email protected]

9446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

23.

ZONAL OFFICE KOLKATA

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office- Kolkata

Plot No. 7/7 & 7/8, Block –CP, Salt Lake, Sector –V,

Kolkata (West Bengal)

Pincode – 700091

Ph - 033 - 23672001, 29861253

Email – [email protected]

24.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Patna

Flat No. 403, 4th Floor,Shyam Kishorei Homes, Behind Of Rajasthan

Restaurant, Dak Bungalow Chauraha, Frezer Road, Patna, Pincode –

800001

Ph - 0612 - 2354222, 3212403

Email: [email protected]

25.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

National SC-ST Hub Office, Bodh Gaya

Magadh University Campus, Bodh Gaya ,

Distt. Gaya Ji , Bihar, Pincode – 824234

Mob - 9760100565

Email - [email protected]

26.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Kolkata

20-B, Abdul Hamid Street, (7th Floor) , Kolkata,

Pincode – 700069

Ph - 033-2213-7084/2248-8288

Email: [email protected]

27.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office, Kolkata

Plot No. 7/7 & 7/8, Block –CP, Salt Lake, Sector –V, Kolkata (West

Bengal)Pincode – 700091

Ph - 033 - 23672001, 29861253

Email: [email protected]

28.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Salt Lake

Plot No- 7/7 & 7/8, Block - CP, Sector - V, Salt Lake, Kolkata, Pincode

– 700091

Ph - 033 - 23671471 / 23670155 / 23672416

Email: [email protected]

29.

ZONAL OFFICE

BHUBANESWAR

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office- Bhubaneswar

304-B, 3rd Floor, NSIC-IMDC Dharampad Bhavan,

IDCO Plot No. 6 Block-D, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar,

Pincode – 751010

Ph - 0674 - 2548875 / 6510189

Email: [email protected]

30.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Bhubaneswar

Module No.204, 2nd Floor, NSIC-IMDC, Dharmpad Bhawan, IDCO

Plot No.6, Block-D, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-

751010

Ph - 0674 - 2583182, 2580780

Email - [email protected]

31.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office, Bhubaneswar

304-B, 3rd Floor, NSIC-IMDC Dharampad Bhavan,

IDCO Plot No. 6 Block-D, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar,

Pincode – 751010

Ph - 0674-2580630

Email - [email protected]

32.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Rourkela

Plot No. QQQ-6, Civil Township, Rourkela,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9447

Pincode – 769012

Ph - 0661 - 2664459

Email - [email protected]

33.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Jamshedpur

Flat No.A-2/1, 2nd Floor, Nirode Apartment, L-Road,

P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Pincode – 831001

Ph - 0657 - 2320068

Email - [email protected]

34.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office, Bokaro, Pincode: 827012

Mob - 9431923065

Email -

[email protected]

o.in

35.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office/ National SC-ST Hub Office- Ranchi

Udyog Bhawan, Industrial Area Kokar, Ranchi

Pincode – 834001

Ph - 0651 - 2543921

Email -

nsshoranchi@nsi

c.co.in

36.

ZONAL OFFICE

GUWAHATI

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office-Guwahati

Bye Lane No.3, Industrial Estate Bamunimaidan, Guwahati

Pincode – 781021

Ph - 0361 - 2960635

Email -

zoguwah

[email protected]

37.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Guwahati

Industrial Estate, 3rd Bye Lane, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati, Pincode –

781021

Ph - 0361 - 2960631

Email - [email protected]

38.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office, Guwahati

Industrial Estate, Bye Lane No.3 , Bamunimaidan, Guwahati Pincode –

781021

Ph - 0361 - 2558947

Email - [email protected]

39.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Sub Branch Office-Agartala

ITI Road, Near Yuba Sangstha Club, Towards Shiksha Niketan School

Road, Indranagar, Agartala, Tripura

Pincode – 799006

Ph - 0381 - 2911763, 9411630450

Email - [email protected]

40.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office- Imphal

Uripok Achom Leikai, Imphal (Manipur) Pincode – 795001

Ph - 0385 - 2414270, 9401726718

Email - [email protected]

41.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office- Dimapur

Ours Building, 2nd Floor, No-411,D.C.Court Junction, Dimapur,

Pincode – 797112

Mob—9905082471

Email - [email protected]

42.

ZONAL OFFICE MUMBAI

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office-Mumbai

Office No. 505, Fifth Floor, Mittal Commercial Building, Wing – B,

Village Marol, Off M.V. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai, Pincode – 400059

Ph - 022 - 28500377

Email - [email protected]

9448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

43.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Mumbai

"P/104, Khairane MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Koparkhairane, Navi

Mumbai, Pincode – 400710

Ph - 022 - 23740268 23740272, 23740116

Email - [email protected]

44.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Andheri Mumbai

5C2, 5th Floor A-Wing, Gundecha Onclave, Kherani Road, Sakinaka,

Andheri (East), Mumbai, Pincode – 400072

Ph - 022 - 2850 9915 / 16

Email - [email protected]

45.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Nagpur

New Secretariat Building, 1st Floor, East Wing, Opp. VCA Stadium,

Beside St. Ursula School, Civil Lines, Nagpur

Pincode – 440001

Ph - 0712 - 2543254, 2552023

Email - [email protected]

46.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Chh. Sambhajinagar

First Floor, Module House, Opp Mes Bunglow Mahavir Chowk, Chh.

Sambhajinagar, Pincode – 431005

Ph - 0240 - 2954395

Email - [email protected]

47.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Nashik

Gaalla No 13 , 3rd Floor Udyog Bhawan , MIDC , Satpur, Nasik,

Pincode – 422007

Ph - 0253 - 2365059

Email - [email protected]

48.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Pune

211/212, 2nd Floor, Times Square Building, Pune-Satara Road, Near

Saibaba Mandir,Pune, Pincode – 411037

Ph - 020 - 24273800/24274800/48620207

Email - [email protected]

49.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office- Pune

213, 2nd Floor, Pune - Satara Road, Near Sai Baba Temple, Swargate,

Pune, Pincode – 411037

Ph - 020 - 48620209

Email - [email protected]

50.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office- Sindhudurg

Plot No.-16, Navanagar Vikas Pradhikaran Beside Sindhudurgnagari,

Oros District, Landmark Near Bank of Maharashtra, Sindhudurg,

Maharashtra, Pincode – 416812

Mob - 9673511536

Email -

nsshosindhudurg@n

sic.co.in

51.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office- Mumbai

Office No. 505, 5th Floor, B -Wing, Mittal Commercia Building,

Village Marol, M.V. Road, Marol Naka,

Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059.

Ph - 022 - 49710065 / 23728902

Email - [email protected]

52.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office-Goa

Sub Branch Plot No. SC - 1/47, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, South

Goa, Goa, Pincode – 403001

Ph - 0832 - 2220540

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9449

Email - [email protected]

53.

ZONAL OFFICE

AHMEDABAD

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office-Ahmedabad

202, 203, Samruddhi Building Opp. Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad,

Pincode – 380014

Ph - 079 - 27543228/27544893/27544254

Email: [email protected]

54.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office-Ahmedabad

202-203, Samruddhi Bldg, Opp. Sakar-III, Near Income Tax Circle,

Ashram Road, Ahmedabad, Pincode – 380014

Ph - 079 - 27543228/27544893/27544254

Email - [email protected]

55.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office-Jaipur

NF/0/2, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Pincode – 302015

Ph - 0141 - 2740191/2742991/2742372/2744899

Email - [email protected]

56.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office- Kota

SSI Association, Purushartha Bhawan, IPIA, Road No. 5,

Kota, Pincode – 324005

Ph - 744 - 2426104

Email: [email protected]

57.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Jaipur VKI

513, Alankar Plaza, Central Spine, Sector-02, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur,

Pincode – 302039

Ph - 0141 - 2231594, 2231573

Email - [email protected]

58.

ZONAL OFFICE RAIPUR

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office-Raipur

204, IInd Floor, Block-A, Crystal Arcade, Near Lodhipara Chowk,

Shankar Nagar,Raipur - 492007

Ph - 0771 - 4035388, 4006070

Email - [email protected]

59.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Indore

NSIC Ltd., 10, Pologround Industrial Estate, Indore

Pincode – 452015

Ph - 0731 - 2424408 - 2424409 – 2422248

Email - [email protected]

60.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Bhopal

110, Malviya Nagar, Ist Floor, Bhopal, Pincode – 462003

Ph - 0755- 4295152, 0755-2992944

Email - [email protected]

61.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Raipur

204, IInd Floor, Block-A, Crystal Arcade, Near Lodhipara Chowk,

Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Pincode – 492007

Ph - 0771 - 4035388, 4006070

Email - [email protected]

62.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office /Sub Branch Office-Surat

306,3rd Floor , Rajhans Building, Opposite J.K Tower, Ring Road,

Surat Pincode – 395002,

Ph - 0261 - 2345733, 4029735

Email - [email protected]

63.

ZONAL OFFICE

BENGALURU

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office - Bengaluru

No. 25, Ist Main Road, KSSIDC Industrial Estate, 6th Block Rajajinagar,

9450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bengaluru, Pincode – 560010

Ph - 080 - 23109059, 23307791, 23147858

Email – [email protected]

64.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Belgaum

Plot No. 60, Anujay Building, 5th Cross, Subhash-Chandra Nagar,Opp.

Belgaum Foundry Cluster,Near Utsav Hotel,Udyambag,Belgaum-

Karnataka, Pincode – 590006

Ph - 0831 - 2449922

Email - [email protected]

65.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office - Bengaluru

No.6&7, ISICOS Building West Of Chord Road Rajaji Nagar, Industrial

Town, Bengaluru, Pincode – 560044

Ph - 080 - 23147791 / 29777790

Email - [email protected]

66.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office - Bengaluru

No. 25, Ist Main Road, KSSIDC Industrial Estate, 6th Block

Rajajinagar, Bengaluru Pincode – 560010

Ph - 080 - 23109059, 23307791,23147858

Email - [email protected]

67.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office -Peenya

C-424, Peenya Industrial Estate, 1st Stage, Behind Peenya Police

Station, Bengaluru, Pincode – 560058

Ph - 080 - 28374676, 28394576, 28372977

Email - [email protected]

68.

ZONAL OFFICE

HYDERABAD

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office-Hyderabad

201, 203, Sri Dattasai Complex, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad, Pincode

– 500020

Ph - 040-27622515 / 040-27615761

Email - [email protected]

69.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Hyderabad

203 & 303, Sri Dattasai Complex, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad,

Pincode – 500020

Ph - 040-27615764 / 27615761 / 27622097.

Email - [email protected]

70.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Vijayawada

D.No.59A-8/8-6B/1, 3rd Floor, Main Road, Gurunanak Colony,

Vijayawada, Pincode – 520008

Ph - 0866 - 2541055

Email - [email protected]

71.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Visakhapatnam

D.No 32-6-1/13/49, Flat No 107, First Floor, MBR Landmark, Sheela

Nagar, Visakhapatnam, Pincode – 530012

Ph - 0891 - 2758554

Email - [email protected]

72.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Balanagar

6-3-144,144/1, 3rd Floor,Jahanara Kareem Complex, Balanagar,

Hyderabad, Pincode – 500037

Ph - 040 - 23324769

Email - [email protected]

73.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office - Hyderabad

NSIC Technical Services Centre Electronic Complex Kamalanagar,

Hyderabad, Pincode – 500062

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9451

Ph - 040 - 29559801

Email - [email protected]

74.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Branch Office TSC-Hyderabad,

NSIC Technical Services Centre, Kamalanagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad,

Pincode – 500062

Ph - 040 - 27121422, 27126646,

Email - [email protected]

75.

ZONAL OFFICE CHENNAI

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Zonal Office-Chennai

Module No. 201, NSIC – Software Technology Business Park, Guindy

Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal,

Chennai – 600 032, Pincode – 600006

Ph - 044 - 2829 1943 ,2829 4541

Email - [email protected]

76.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Chennai

Module 205, NSIC Software Technology Park Building, Guindy

Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai

Pincode – 600032

Ph - 044 - 28293347/28294541

Email - [email protected]

77.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

National SC-ST Hub Office- Chennai

MSME-DI Campus, No.65/1, GST Road, Guindy,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu, Pincode – 600032

Ph - 044 - 48631200

Email - [email protected]

78.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Ambattur

309 SIDCO-AIEMA Towers, 1st Main Road, Ambattur Industrial

Estate, Chennai, Pincode – 600058

Ph - 044 - 26243984, 28291292

Email - [email protected]

79.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Puducherry

Administrative Building, Industrial Estate, Thattachavady, Puducherry -

605 009,

Ph - 0413 - 2248970, 2248940

Email - [email protected]

80.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Madurai

74, ADR Tower 1st Floor, Kalavasal, Theni Main Road, Madurai,

Pincode – 625016,

Ph - 0452-2609992, 2609993, 4984191.

Email - [email protected]

81.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Coimbatore

1055/10, Gowtham Centre, Avanashi Road, Coimbatore

Pincode – 641018,

Ph - 0422 - 2244618, 2247757

Email - [email protected]

82.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Branch Office- Cochin

NSIC Ltd, S-67, GCDA Commercial Complex, Marine

Drive,Shanmugham Road, Kochi, Pincode – 682031,

Ph - 0484 - 2381850/2368149/2986107/2351440

Email - [email protected]

83.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited,

Sub Branch Office - Thrissur

(Opposite to Ayyanthole Post Office) Ayyanthole

Thrissur, Pincode– 680003

9452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mob- 9895571743

Email – [email protected]

84.

National

Small

Industries

Corporation Technical Centres

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Training Centre, Mandi

# 210/12, Ram Nagar(Pulgharat), Mandi, Distt.

Mandi (HP), Pincode – 175001

Mob- 9816071471

Email: [email protected]

85.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Livelihood Business Incubator- Deoria,

Kaushal Chandra Tower,1st And Second Floor, 319/1, Above Reliance

Smart Point, CC Road, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, Pincode–274001

Mob- 8009477301

Email: [email protected]

86.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC- Technical Services Centre & LBI- Bodh Gaya

Magadh University Campus, Near PG Hindi Department Bodh Gaya

Bihar -824234

Mob- 8697887899

Email - [email protected]

87.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Neemka

Sec-71, Tigaon Road, Neemka, Faridabad , Haryana,

Pincode – 121004

Ph - 0129 - 2401101

Email - [email protected]

88.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

STBP- Chennai

B-24, Guindy Industrial Estate, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai

Pincode – 600032

Ph - 044 - 22250444, 22250445

Email - [email protected]

89.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Okhla

Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi, Pincode – 110020

Ph - 011 - 26826801, 26826847, 26826846

Email - [email protected]

90.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Chennai

Sector B-24, Guindy Industrial Estate Ekkaduthangal PO,

Chennai, Pincode - 600032

Ph - 044 - 22252335/6/7

Email - [email protected]

91.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Howrah

Japanigate, Balitikuri, Howrah, Pincode – 711113

Ph - 033 - 26530304/26532962/26534280

Email - [email protected]

92.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Rajkot

Bhavnagar Road, Aji Industrial Area, Rajkot,

Pincode – 360003

Ph - 0281 - 2387396/97/98

Email - [email protected]

93.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Hyderabad

Kamalanagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad, Pincode – 500062

Ph - 40 - 27121422, 27126646, 27134025, 27124597

Email - [email protected]

94.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Aligarh

A-1 Industrial Estate Aligarh, Pincode – 202001

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9453

Ph - 0571 - 2403552

Email: [email protected]

95.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Rajpura

D-82/83, Focal Point, Rajpura

Pincode – 140401,

Ph - 01762 - 232669

Email: [email protected]

96.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

NSIC Technical Services Centre-Dindigul

Shed 27,29 & 30 SIDCO Industrial Estate, Dindigul

Tamil Nadu, Pincode – 624003

Ph - 0451 - 2911165

Email: [email protected]

97.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

EMDBP Hyderabad

Module No. 207, Kamalanagar, ECIL Post,

Hyderabad, Pincode – 500062

Ph - 040 - 27141422, 27125802

Email: [email protected]

98.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Livelihood Business Incubator -Kashipur

B-1, B-5, Industrial Area,Bazpur Road, Kashipur,

District – Udham Singh Nagar, Pincode – 244713

Ph - 5947 - 262453

Email: [email protected]

99.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Law & Recovery Cell-Kolkata,

Room No.2/1, 2nd Floor, HUDCO Tower, New Market, 15n, Nelli

Sengupta Serini, Lindsay Street Kolkata 700087

Ph - 033 - 22522232

Email - [email protected]

100.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

IMDC Bhubaneswar

IDCO Plot No.6, Block D, Macheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar,

Pincode – 751010

Ph - 0674 - 2548875

Email - [email protected]

101.

National Small Industries Corporation Limited

Livelihood Business Incubator -Naini,

Industrial Estate, Udyog Nagar, Naini, Prayagraj

Pincode – 211009,

Ph - 0532 - 2697218, 2697050

Email – [email protected]

OTHERS LANDS / BUILDINGS OWNED BY NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

LIMITED

102.

LAND/BUILDING DETAILS

Puducherry, Plot No. A-19, PIPDIC Industrial Estate, Sedarapet,

Puducherry

103.

Plot No. B-38D, Sector-57, Noida

104.

RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS

Flat No. 101, 1st Floor, B-Wing, Santacruz, Chembur Link Road, MIG

Building, New Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai -400089.

105.

Flat No. 102, 1st Floor, B-Wing, Santacruz Chembur Link Road, MIG

Building, New Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai - 400089.

106.

Flat No.103, 1st Floor, B-Wing, Santacruz Chembur Link Road, MIG

Building, New Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai -400089.

107.

Flat No.104, 1st Floor, B-Wing, Santacruz Chembur Link Road, MIG

Building, New Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai -400089.

108.

Flat No.1203, 12th Floor, A-Wing, Santacruz Chembur Link Road, New

Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400089

109.

Flat No. 1204, 12th Floor, A-Wing, Santacruz Chembur Link Road, New

Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400089

9454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

110.

Flat No. 602, 6th Floor, Bldg. No. 12, Shri Ganesh CHS, Shastri Nagar,

Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400104

111.

Flat No. 604, 6th Floor, B-Wing, Bldg. No. 6, Vasundhara CHS, Shastri

Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400104

112.

Flat No. 1250, 12th Floor, Azad Nagar Poornima CHS, D-64, Azad

Nagar– 2, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053.

113.

Flat No. 1254, 12th Floor, Azad Nagar Poornima CHS, D-64, Azad

Nagar-2, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400053.

114.

Flat No. C-75,4th Floor, Shri Sunder Apartment, Opp. Diamond Garden,

Chembur, Mumbai-400071

115.

Flat No., 113/3920, 1st Floor, Old Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-

400084.

116.

Flat No; A.F-8, Durgawadi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Taleigao,Goa

117.

Flat No. D.P.42, Durgawadi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.,

Taleigao, Goa

118.

Flat No.186-N-HIG ‗C‘, 3rd Floor, Block No. 3, Yahalanka, New Town,

VIth Phase, Bengaluru

119.

Flat No.199-N-HIG ‗C‘, Yahalanka New Town, Vth Phase, Bengaluru

120.

Flat No. P-384, Jalvayu Vihar, Phase-IV, Sector-21, Noida

121.

Flat No. P-476, Jalvayu Vihar, Phase-IV, Sector-21, Noida

122.

Flat No. P-299, Jalvayu Vihar, Phase-IV, Sector-21, Noida

123.

Flat No. Q-517, Jalvayu Vihar, Phase-IV, Sector-21, Noida

124.

Flat No. 45, Block No. 03, F.F, Opp. Radhika Theater, Kushaiguda,

Hyderabad.

125.

Flat No. 36, Block No. 03, G.F, Opp. Radhika Theater, Kushaiguda,

Hyderabad.

126.

Flat No. 44, Block No. 03, F.F, Opp. Radhika Theater, Kushaiguda,

Hyderabad.

127.

Kashipur, Flat No. B-5, Narain Kunj Colony, Kashipur.

128.

Kashipur, Flat No. B-6, Narain Kunj Colony, Kashipur.

129.

Jaipur, Flat No. C-54 (G-159) Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

130.

Jaipur, Flat No. 34/37 G.F, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur

131.

Jaipur, Flat No. 34/39 F.F, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur

132.

Flat No. B-4/31, Goyal Intercity, Ahmedabad

133.

House No. 102/844, Nirmal Apartments New Nangal Sarai, Ahmedabad

134.

House No. 113/976, Nirmal Apartments New Nangal Sarai, Ahmedabad

135.

Flat No. 10, First Floor, Block No. 469, Nadvvkkari Village, Egmore,

Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai

136.

Flat No. 8, First Floor, Block-A, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana

137.

OFFICE SPACE

M/s Siddhi Estate Owners Association, Opp. Gujarat High Court

Ahmedabad

Unit No. G. 01

Unit No. G. 10

Unit No. G. 11

Unit No. G. 07

Unit No. G. 08

Unit No. G. 09

138.

CIB/159, POR

-

Ramangamdi, Industrial Estate, Vadodra

139.

Shed No.101, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Malumichampatti, Coimbatore

140.

Shed No. C-20, Industrial Estate, Thattanchavady, Puducherry

141.

Shop No. 3 & 4, Ground Floor, Unit No. B-21, 14379,

Guru Gobind Singh Tower, Dholewal,G.T Road Ludhiana

142.

142,143, Block-C,F.F, Morya Lok Complex, Patna

143.

Space No. 02-01, 02-08,02-27,02-28,02-29 (5 Nos.), New Market,

Kolkata

[F. No. K-01/4/2020-SME]

ANKIT KUMAR AGRAWAL, Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9455

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई ददल्ली, 31 जुलाई, 2026

का.आ. 1787.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj श्री गोडिन्द अंकुश डशंदे ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa Je U;k;ky; अहमदनगर ds iapkV (13/2017) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. ,y-39025/01/2026-vkbZ vkj (ch- II)-76]

सलोनी, उ

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st July, 2026

S.O. 1787.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 13/2017) of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and Shri Govind Ankush

Shinde.

[No. L-39025/01/2026-IR(B-II)-76]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDNAGAR

(Before Shri Sharad G.Deshpande Presiding Officer, Labour Court ,Ahmednagar)

Exh. O- 7

Reference (IDA) No. 13/2017

(CNR No. MHLC160002682017)

1.

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Regional Office, Aurangabad 5/5/72,

New Usmanpura, Aurangabad, 431005

2.

Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Branch Mandavgan, Po.: Mandavgan,

Tal.: Shrigonda, Dist.: Ahmednagar.

2A.

Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Plot No. 56,M.I.D.C.,

Sahyadri Chauk, Nagapur,

Ahmednagar.

... First Party

Vs.

Govind Ankush Shinde

Age: 40 Years, Occ.: Nil,

At Po.: Mandavgan, Tal.: Shrigonda,

Dist.: Ahmednagar

… Second Party

CORAM:

Shri Sharad G. Deshpande, Judge, First Labour Court A.nagar.

Advocates : T.T. Kakad Advocate for First Party.

Shri K.Y. Modgekar for Second Party.

9456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

( Date: 25-07-2024)

1.

This Reference IDA Application filed by Second Party Govind Ankush Shinde against First Party Central

Bank of India, branch Mandavgan District Ahmednagar where he was acting as Sweeper. However, on 1.4.2017 he

was removed from service on the basis of oral order. Being aggrieved by said order he has filed this said reference

IDA application for reinstatement alongwith all benefits. Brief facts of the Application are as under-

2.

The second party Govind Ankush Shinde (Labour) is Sweeper towards the first party Central Bank of India (

Bank) at branch Mandavgan since 2008. Initially his salary was Rs. 100/- only. Neither any appointment letter, nor

any salary slip given to him. He has given unblemished and continuous service since 2008 to 2017 near about 9

years. On 1.4.2017 he was dismissed from service by oral order. Therefore, he raised said issue before Labour

Commissioner at Pune. However, there was no settlement and therefore such reference. He was many times

requested for his reinstatement however Bank pay no heed. In between, in the year 2013 there was process started for

recruitment, he has also taken part in the said recruitment however no appointment was given to him. Further Bank

did not comply the Section 25-F, G, H. Actually he was given 240 days service and his post was permanent. Though

recruitment process was held however no appointment was given to him. His last salary was Rs. 130/- per day. He

was dismissed from services against principles of natural justice without any permission.

3.

On the contrary, other workers namely Keru Suryabhan Borude, Dikshant Ghogare, Vinod Ghaytadak,

Abasaheb Kale was kept on establishment. The second party was removed from service without any valid reason

and legal way. Therefore oral order dated 1-4-2017 needs to be vacated and it prayed that the second party should

appoint alongwith salary and all benefits. Hence, this application.

4.

In pursuance of notice first party Nos. 1 & 2 Central Bank appeared and filed their detail written statement at

Exh. C-6.

5.

In between the address of the bank was changed and necessary amendment was taken on record. A pursis has

filed to read the original Say of Bank. Pursis was at Exh. C-22.

6.

Bank has filed detail Say at Exh C-6 and denied all the averments in application. According to the first party

application is not legal and maintainable as per law. The second party has never locus-standi to file such application.

The application was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation. It was specifically denied that the bank has given

oral order on 1.4.2017 regarding dismissal of the said second party. The last salary of Rs. 130/- per day was denied

by the bank. It is clarified by bank that no any appointment was given to the second party. Actually the appointment

of the employee, dismissal, promotions these rights were not vested with the bank. It was vested towards Zonal

officer. All appointments were fulfilled by after giving public notice in news paper. There was no any rule to give

permanency to the workers who have completed 60 or 45 days. There was no any classification as temporary or

permanent Sweeper in bank. The second party ought to appoint as per rules and conditions given to him in

advertisement. No condition under sec. 25 F, G and H and rule 80, 81 were applicable to bank. It was also denied

that, his service was unblemished. Actually he has filed matter towards Labour Officer without any valid reason. He

never given continuous service to the bank, nor bank dismissal him. Actually his work was temporary and he has

given per day salary. Whenever work was available bank used to call him, he never worked as permanent or

temporary worker towards bank. Therefore no question arises regarding any notice pay or compensation. As he was

not in service towards bank no question arise to prepare any seniority list, no any particular work allotted to him. Now

a days there was no work available which was suitable to him. Already he was going towards another bank regarding

his work. He has filed this application only to harass the bank. Lastly, they prayed for rejection of this application

with cost.

7.

On the basis of application and W.S. filed on record my learned predecessor has framed issues at Exh. O-6,

to which I have recorded my findings thereon with the reasons mentioned below-

Sr. No.

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1

Does the second party prove that the first party has illegally and improperly

terminated his services by oral order dated 1.4.2017, violating the statutory

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Negative

2

Does the Second Party prove that, he is entitled for the relief of reinstatement

with continuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. 1.4.2017 ?

Does not survive

3

What Award

As per final order

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9457

REASONS

8.

Issue No.1:

To substantiate his claim, second party has given oral and documentary evidence at Exh. U-16. He has filed

School leaving certificate, caste certificate, permanency orders from Bank at Exh. U-10, He also filed S.S.C. mark-

sheet , Order dated 3.12.2011 at Exh. U-12, Also filed some correspondence towards association and Zonal office, a

letter for collecting information, notification of recruitment, and public advertisement placed on record at Exh. U-15.

He also filed order of regional office, order from Central Sweepers and regarding their recruitment. He also filed

order to give permanency those work who have completed 45 days continuous service, also filed orders of Zonal

Office Ahmednagar regarding recruitment and orders of W.P. No. 3781/ 2014 of Hon'ble High Court Guvahati and

also copy of judgments in W.P. No. 365 & 374/2014, he also filed copy of W.P. No. 8275/ 2018 and also copy of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2760-2761/ 2023 regarding Madhyapradesh Central Bank, order of Hon'ble

High Court dated 16.3.2022, He also filed a letter of Bankers Committee dated 10.2.2022, also filed letters sent by

bankers Committee to Central office dated 28-6-2021, and letter given by second party dated 5.7.2021, and also some

correspondence dated 2.8.2021 and 5.11.2022 , He also filed agreement regarding temporary workers, letter dated 14-

8-2012 given by Bank to other branches, also a letter dated 31-7-2023 given by association to bank regarding

compliance of said agreement, copy of letter issued by first party dated 26-12-2023, orders in W.P.No. 379/ 2024, and

W.P. No. 14519/2012 of Hon'ble High Court Jabalpur, Madhyapradesh, some paper cutting of daily Yashbharati,

cutting of recruitment in Loksatta newspaper, application of second party dated 4-1-2024, news regarding cancellation

of recruitment dated 13-1-2024 , letter from association dated 10.1.2024 and some receipts placed on record.

9.

To substantiate their claim, the second party examined himself at Exh. U-16 and reiterated the contention in

the application. I have refrain myself to mention the same. He has filed evidence closed pursis at Exh. U-16. Per

contra, bank has examined one Shri Makarand Kasabe at Eh. C-12 and one another witness namely Sonali Jadhav at

Exh. C-16 and filed evidence closed pursis at Exh. C-21.

10.

According to the second party, he has given unblemished and continuous service for 9 years and therefore, he

has eligible as permanent employee of bank. However, bank did not given permanency to him. On the contrary, on

1.4.2017 he has been dismissed from service. Actually there is some procedure ought to be adopted by bank regarding

permanency. According to this second party the employees who has completed 60 days and now in 45 days these

employees are eligible for permanency and therefore to prove the said fact burden shifts on the shoulder of the second

party himself, but he did not succeed the same. He has to prove the some one has given permanency by adopting this

procedure. According to him, on 1.4.2017 he removed from service and it was oral termination. I have minutely

gone through with all documents filed on record. However no any sufficient evidence placed on record by the second

party except some answers regarding vouchers. Learned Advocate Kakad turned my attention to cross examination.

Actually Central Bank is Nationalized bank and such bank having no powers to dismiss to any one by oral

termination. Furthermore, the recruitment process has to adopt by bank. Though the second party submitted that he

has Sweeper since 28.12.2008 however no any documentary evidence placed on record. Per contra, he has admitted

at Exh. U-16 that the appointment of any employee has to fill up only by due procedure by public advertisement in

news paper. However, in the year 2008 no any advertisement had been published by bank. Also no any written or

oral examination was held. There was no any agreement between him and bank regarding his service. Also no

appointment letter given by bank. He has also admitted that bank has not given any particular work to him. Further

Kakad Advocate turned my attention that he has no authority to sign any register of the bank. Also he has no any

authority to record any entries in register and therefore, no any cogent evidence placed on record by the second party.

11.

To substantiate their claim, he mentioned that on 1.4.2017 he was removed from service. His service was

clean and unblemished. However no any appointment letter or salary slip given to him. Also compensation of sec.

25-F, 25-G, and 25-H not given to him. Advocate Kakad has taken cross of the second party and turned my attention

that in the year 2008 no any advertisement given by the bank and no any written and oral examination taken by bank.

Neither any appointment letter, nor salary slip given to him. He has no authority to sign any register. No signature

taken on attendance register. The voluminous documents placed on record regarding recruitment process in the year

2013 at Exh. U-27 but thereafter said recruitment process was cancelled. The copy of order in W.P. No. 379/ 2024

and W.P. No. 14519/ 2015 order of Hon'ble Jabalpur High Court placed on record. However these matters are not

connected with the matter in hand. The recruitment notification No. 2425 was also placed on record at Exh. U-33.

Copy of order in W.P. No. 3781/ 2014 dated 14-3-2016 of Hon'ble Apex Court placed on record. I have minutely

gone through with all these documents. However, did not find any relevancy of these matters regarding matter in

hand in my opinion, any recruitment process must be clean, transparent and definite no may one can allow to appoint

above process.

12.

When any one make prayer of permanency he has to prove his entry was valid one and burden shifts on his

shoulder. Learned Advocate Shri Modgekar submitted that no seniority list was published. He also mentioned some

names like Keru Suryabhan Borude, Dikshant Ghogare, Vinod Ghaytadak, Abasaheb Kale etc. they were in service

but such argument though attractive but not digestible. He has to make their own case on own footing. The judgment

of Court were not depend on qualitative but depend on quantity therefore I do not wish to comment in case of

9458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

other workers.

13.

Learned Advocate Shri Modgekar turned my attention to the recruitment process in 2013 and stay orders

passed in W.P. No. 365 and 374/2014. The advertisement was published in English and sweeper does not understood

the same. It should be vernacular local language but thereafter whole process was cancelled. The reference should

not be taken from said matter. At Exh. U-23 there are some letters regarding recruitment process of Sweepers. Also

copy of orders of other Hon'ble High Courts, Guvahati and Nagpur bench. The copy of W.P. No. 356/ 2016, W.P. No.

8275/ 2018 was placed on record. I have minutely gone through with orders of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 8275/

2018 Sandip Prahalat Engole & others. However, in this matter there was memorandum of settlement and if any

recruitment was started than these sweepers has to be considered on priority basis. In case in hand no specific order

given by any Hon'ble High Court. In W.P. No. 17273/ 2016 Pradipkumar Shuklya Vs. Central Bank of India

recruitment process was suspended. In short, there was many case filed by Sweepers against Central bank and facts

are different. In my opinion, the second party has to prove their case by filing some probable evidence however in

this matter no any documentary evidence given by the second party. Per contra, Central bank examined on Makarand

Kasabe at Exh. C-12 and Sonali Jadhav at Exh. C-16. In cross examination very much reliance given on the

vouchers. Actually these are witnesses of bank and in my opinion only vouchers of the documents could not decide

merit in their prayer and therefore we could not rely on oral testimony of these bank officers. The signatures of the

employee is to give on bank vouchers. Another employee Sunil Gatane was appointed said period. The date and time

was mentioned on vouchers regarding payment. They tried to came on record except these evidence no other

evidence available with second party. Shri Makarand Kasabe already deposed that he could not assign the salary of

Shri Shinde.

14.

In cross examination of Sonali Jadhav very much relied on voucher. The expenses of daily wages worker

used to shown in daily wages account. However, the reasons of the expenses not mentioned on voucher. No any

documents available with bank regarding daily wages worker. In my opinion, for appointment of any employee there

should be first creation of post and thereafter advertisement must be published in news paper. In present matter he

was appointed in 2008 and having salary of Rs.100/- per day and he has working 45 days did not prove by him and no

any documents placed on record regarding the same. Though whole case depend upon other employee who were in

service and vouchers available towards bank and therefore, I do not think that he was eligible for reinstatement in

service only on some admissions given in cross examination.

15.

Learned Advocate Kakad placed reliance on Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi ( AIR

2006 SC 1806 (SC) wherein it is held that-

"Constitution of India] Art 16, Art 162, Art 226, Art 14, Art 39(d) Public employment Appointment dehors

due process of selection envisaged by constitutional scheme- Confers no right on appointee- Regularisation of daily

wager, temporary/ contractual employees appointed in violation of constitutional scheme- Right of Court/ executive

would not extend to directing regularisation to be treated as permanence in service- Fact that employee has continued

for long, irrespective- That apart, principle of equal pay for equal work cannot also be applied for giving relief of

permanency- Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked by such employees merely because in past State

had regularised similarly placed on record.

It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for

a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made

permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due

process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the

instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc employees who by the

very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the

recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an employee had

continued under cover of an order of Court, which we have described as 'litigious employment' in the earlier part of

the judgment, he would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the service. In fact, in such

cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the employee

approaching it is found entitled to relief, it may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner that ultimately

no prejudice will be caused to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his employment would hold up the

regular procedure for selection or impose on the State the burden of paying an employee who is really not required.

The courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs

by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional

and statutory mandates.

In my opinion in this case, criteria mentioned regarding promotion on temporary employee and daily wages.

When there was any appointment in Nationalized bank there must be apply principle of equity. There should not be

any violation of these principle of equity in between daily wages, contract labour and seasonal workers. "Same

workers same pay" ^leku dke leku osru* these principle is not apply here and therefore, others State apply these rules

must be apply case in hand. These principle is not sustained. In case in hand Shri Modgekar submitted that same

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9459

other workers are in service and such rule must be apply to case in hand however Rule of equality in public

employment is basic feature of out Constitution and therefore this court having no right to give appointment of a

particular employee and violate these fundamental principle. The same fact mentioned in case of Umadevi that the

workers who are doing job on basis of honorarium should not be permanent.

16.

The Learned Advocate Shri Modgekar relied on Chief Conservator of Forests, Pune and another Vs.

Janabai Sonaba Sarpale ( 2019 (I) Bom.L.C. 18) wherein it is held that-

"Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section

30, Sch-IV, Items 6,9- Regularisation- power of Industrial Court- Plea raised that in view of Uma Devi’s case-

Industrial Court has no power to regularise- Held, once a case of unfair labour practice is established, Industrial

Court has power to regularise services.‖

The case of Umadevi is not applicable here. However, in this above case the Court has declared unfair labour

practice but case in hand facts are different one.

17.

The Advocate Shri Modgekar also relied upon the following judgments-

1.

H.D. SinghV Vs. Reserve Bank of India and others ( S.C. Labour Judgments 1984 to 1987 p 610),

wherein it is held that-

“Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(oo), 25-B- “Retrenchment” meaning of- Dailyrated worker- His

name struck off rolls on ground of passing matriculate examination – In instant case retrenchment of appellant by

striking off name from rolls held to be retrenchment- Retrenchment effected in violation of Section 25-B is invalid.‖

2.

Trade-Wings Limited Vs. Prabhakar Dattararam Phodkar of Bombay and Ors. (1992 I CLR, 480)

wherein it is held that-

"S-25-F Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957-Rule 81-Display of Seniority List Category-wise before

effecting retrenchment-Failure to display such list-Effect- The said provision being mandatory, retrenchment will have

to be quashed."

Both the matters were relating to permanent employee. Therefore, ratio does not apply to case in hand.

3.

Umesh Saxena Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra and others ( 1993 FLR (66) 566) wherein it is

held that-

"Section 25-F of the Act would certainly apply to the petitioner even if his appointment was adhoc or

temporary. The fact that he had worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the issuance of

termination order would make it imperative for the employer to follow the procedure laid down under the Act."

It is not proved he has given 240 days service.

4.

Divisional Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Secondary Education, Nagpur and

another Vs. Mohd. Naim S/o Abdul Rahim ( 2009 (1) Bom.LC 453 (Bom)) wherein it is held that-

“Sections 25-F, 25-G, 25-H- Termination- And, reinstatement of an employee-Mode, or manner of entry into

service- Is one of relevant factors, to be considered-And, distinction between cases of prayer for regularization and

reinstatement being made earlier, is now not available after Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case of

Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi-In public employment.‖

5.

Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel Vs. Municipal Council, Narkhed ( Civil Appeal No. 6188/ 2019 ) wherein it

is held that-

"Illegal termination-Reinstatement without back wages- Denial of back wages to employee who has suffered

due to illegal act of employer would amount to indirectly punishing employee concerned and rewarding employer by

relieving him of obligation to pay back wages including emolument- Charge of misconduct not substantiated-

Convening of fresh enquiry without recording any reasons.‖

No question arise regarding back wages.

6.

M.P. Electricity Board, Vidisha Vs. Hariram and another ( 2000 (57) FLR, 750) wherein it is held that-

― Section 25-F- Constitution of India] 1950-Article 226-Award of reinstatement- passed by Industrial Court

in appeal Employees engaged in daily wages."

7.

Samishta Dube Vs. City Board, Etawah & Anothr ( 1999 LLR 460), wherein it is held that-

"Section 6-P read with Section 6(N)- Retrenchment-Last come, first go- principle applicable even in case of

those employed on daily wages- Section 6-P does not require any particular period of continuous service."

No ratio apply to case in hand and there is recruitment process.

9460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8.

General Manager, Telecom, Nagpur Vs. Naresh Brijlal Charote (2001 LAB.I.C 2127), wherein it is

held that-

"25-F Workman-Definition of- Does not make any distinction between part time employee and full time

employee-Respondent appointed as part time sweeper and required to do manual and skilled work-Is a workman- Non

compliance of mandatory provision of S.25-F before terminating his services- Order of termination is void ab initio."

This matter for reinstatement and not for compliance of Section 25-F.

9.

Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan ( 2015 LLR 785) wherein it is held that-

"Award of back wages will be on the basis of several factors including length of service financial position of

the employer, un-employment of the workman after termination of his services etc."

No question arise regarding back wages.

10.

Bright Export Limited Vs. Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation ( 2016 LLR 487) wherein it is

held that-

― When a particular fact is within the special knowledge of the opposite party, the burden t prove the same

lies upon the opposite party in terms of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, even if the same has been

pleaded by other party."

11.

Sanjay Kumar S/o Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam (

2010 LLR 1065) wherein it is held that-

"If the party possesses best evidence and is not produced before the Court, an adverse inference can be

drawn under the Evidence Act against such a party."

No appointment letter was given and salary given day to day therefore ratio not applicable to here.

12.

Central Welfare Board and Others Vs. Ms. Anjali Bepari and others ( 1996 LLR 1089) wherein it is

held that-

"CASUAL EMPLOYEE- Regularisation of Project is being would up in phased manner and services also

being phased out-Service of Petitioner cannot be regularised- Direction to continue her in any other temporary

scheme issued- Dispensing of service should be done on basis of last come first go.‖

13.

Samishta Dube Vs. City Board, Etawah & Another ( 199 LLR 460) wherein it is held that-

"Section 6 P read with 6(N)- Retrenchment- Last come, first go- Principle applicable even in case of those

employed on daily wages- Section 6P does not require any particular period of continuous service."

Ratio not applicable here.

14.

Vilas Agaji Pawar and others Vs. The Union of India Additional Solicitor General and others (W.P.

No. 379 of 2024 dated 12-1-2024)

In the present matter the language of advertisement should be in vernacular as per verdict of Hon'ble

Supreme Court and therefore, I have recorded negative finding to issue No.1.

Issue No.2:

18.

This employee was working towards bank as unskilled labour he did not prove that he has given continuous

service for 240 days and therefore, no question arise of any reinstatement alongwith back wages and therefore, issue

no.2 does not survive. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to pass the following order:-

AWARD

1.

The reference is answered in the ―negative‖.

2.

No order as to costs.

3.

Four Copies of this award be sent to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Pune for publication and

necessary action.

Ahmednagar

Dated :25.07.2024

SHARAD G.DESHPANDE, Presiding officer,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9461

नई ददल्ली, 13 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1788.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj एयर इंजडया ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

-सह-

] मुंबई-I, ds iapkV (

सीजीआईटी

/23/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[सं.

11012/29/2003-

-(

एम-I)]

जयदीृ यादव, उ

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2026

S.O. 1788.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CGIT.No. 1/23/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Mumbai- 1, as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of M/s.

Air India and their workmen.

[No. L-11012/29/2003– IR (CM-I)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT

(JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Reference No. CGIT-1/23 of 2003

Air India Limited

…Management

Versus

Their Workmen (Pankaj Baghudia & Ors)

…Workmen/Claimants

Appearance:

For the Management

: Mr. L.D‘souza and Ms. Deepika Agarwal(Adv.)

For the Workmen

: Mr. Chintan Joshi(General Secretary)

Mumbai dated 10th June 2026.

AWARD

The present industrial dispute was referred by the Central Government vide Order No. L-11012/29/2003-IR(C-1)

dated 14.05.2003 under Section 10(1)(d) and 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the

following issues:

1. Whether the contract between Air India and its contractors was sham and bogus and a

camouflage to deprive the concerned workmen of benefits available to permanent

workmen of Air India?

2. Whether the concerned workmen should be declared permanent workmen of Air India?

3. What wages and consequential benefits are payable to the concerned workmen?

The dispute originated from Writ Petition No. 2991 of 1999 filed before the Hon‘ble Bombay High Court wherein

directions were issued to the Central Government to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication. Pursuant thereto, the

present reference came to be registered before this Tribunal.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered appearance and filed their respective pleadings,

documents and evidence. Subsequently, the Claimants, represented through Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha and its General

Secretary Shri Chintan Joshi, approached the Management for an amicable settlement of the dispute.

A Memorandum of Settlement has thereafter been executed between Air India Limited and the 52 Claimants covered

under the present Reference. The Settlement records that the parties, after several rounds of discussions, have

9462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

voluntarily resolved all disputes forming the subject matter of the reference. The settlement provides for payment of

retrenchment compensation, gratuity and other monetary benefits as detailed in Annexure-A annexed thereto. The

names of all 52 claimants and the amounts payable to each of them are specifically incorporated in the settlement.

The Settlement further records that the concerned claimants have accepted the amounts mentioned against their

respective names in full and final satisfaction of all claims arising out of the present reference and have agreed not to

pursue any further claim of reinstatement, permanency, wages or consequential benefits against Air India Limited. It

is also recorded that certain amounts payable to deceased workmen shall be paid to their legal heirs in accordance

with law.

The Tribunal has carefully perused the Memorandum of Settlement, the annexures thereto and the signatures of the

parties. The settlement appears to be lawful, voluntary and arrived at during conciliation of the pending industrial

dispute. There is nothing on record to suggest coercion, fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence.

The law is well settled that a fair and bona fide settlement of an industrial dispute deserves acceptance by the

adjudicating authority and should ordinarily be given effect to.

In Herbertsons Ltd. v. Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 687 : 1977 Lab IC 1621, the Hon‘ble Supreme

Court held that a settlement arrived at between management and workmen in the course of collective bargaining

should be respected and given due weight unless shown to be unfair, unjust or mala fide.

Similarly, in National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 1 SCC 371 : 2000-I-LLJ-247 (SC), the

Hon‘ble Supreme Court reiterated that settlements entered into by parties under the Industrial Disputes Act constitute

an important method of industrial peace and industrial adjudication should ordinarily encourage and uphold such

settlements when they are fair and voluntary.

Having examined the terms of settlement and the surrounding circumstances, this Tribunal is satisfied that the

settlement is just, fair, reasonable and in the larger interest of industrial harmony. The settlement comprehensively

resolves all disputes forming the subject matter of the present reference.

Accordingly, the Reference deserves to be disposed of in terms of the settlement.

AWARD

The Memorandum of Settlement executed between Air India Limited and the 52 Claimants represented through

Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha is hereby taken on record and shall form part of this Award.

The Reference No. CGIT-1/23 of 2003 is answered in terms of the said Settlement.

It is declared that the rights and liabilities of the parties shall stand governed by the terms and conditions contained in

the Memorandum of Settlement and Annexure-A appended thereto.

Air India Limited shall make payment of the amounts specified in Annexure-A to the respective claimants and/or

legal heirs, wherever applicable, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement.

Upon such compliance, all claims, demands and disputes forming the subject matter of the present reference shall

stand finally settled and extinguished.

The Settlement shall be binding upon the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

Accordingly, the present Reference is disposed of and a No Dispute Award is passed in terms of the Settlement.

Let a copy of this Award be sent to the Central Government for publication as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Justice ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 13 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1789.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947(1947 dk 14)dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj लेडी हार्डडग मेजडकल कॉलेज और श्रीमती एस. के. स्ट्ृताल, ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह

–

नं. II] नई ददल्ली ds iapkV (आई डी नम्बर

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[सं. एल-20013/01/2026 – आईआर (सीएम-I)]

जयदीृ यादव, उ

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9463

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2026

S.O. 1789.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID No. 176/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court N0.II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital, and their workmen,

[No. L-20013/01/2026 – IR (CM-I)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM – LABOUR COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

ID No. 176/2019

Sh. Jaswant, S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, R/o House No. T-106, Gali Hanuman Mandir, NabiKarim, Pharganj, New Delhi –

110055…Applicant/Claimant

Versus

1. The Director, Lady Harding Medical College & Smt. S.K. Hospital, ShaheedBhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi –

110002

…Respondent/Management No. 1

2. The Director, M/s M.S. Vigilant Security, Placement & Detective Service Pvt. Ltd., P-23, Old Double Story,

Lajpat Nagar – IV, New Delhi – 110024. ...

…..Respondent/Management No. 2

Award

21.05.2026

Item No.- 05

I.D. No. 176/2018

21th May 2026

Present:

None for the parties.

On 11.12.2025, the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant had sought further time to file an

application for impleading the legal heirs in place of the deceased claimant. It was submitted that the widow of the

deceased claimant had also unfortunately expired, and that only their children survived.

Record perused. It is noted that on 14.01.2025, the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant had

submitted that the claimant had expired and that an application for impleadment of legal heirs in place of the deceased

claimant would be moved.

As a rule, an application for impleadment of legal heirs ought to be filed within 90 days. However, more

than one year has elapsed, but no such application has been filed till date. Record further reveals that the cross-

examination of the claimant had been deferred on 10.04.2023.

In these circumstances, when no application for impleadment of legal heirs has been filed for a

considerable period and no one has appeared on behalf of the claimant to participate in the proceedings, this Tribunal

has no other option but to pass a ‗No Dispute Award‘ in the matter. Award is passed accordingly. Let a copy of this

Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for publication/notification under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. File be consigned to the Record Room.

Dated 21.05.2026

ATUL KUMAR GARG, Presiding Officer

9464

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 13 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1790.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj एस सी सी एल ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

] हजदराबाद ds

iapkV (ृहचान

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[सं.

22013/01/2026-

(सी.एम-II)]

जयदीृ यादव, उ

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2026

S.O. 1790.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (ID. No. 182/2025) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

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

SCCL,, and their workmen,

[No. L-22013/01/2026 – IR (CM-II)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 13th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No.182/2025

Between:

Shri Syed Javeed,

C/o The Singareni Miners and Engineering Workers Union,

HMS, Qtr.No.D/704, HMS Office, Godavarikhani,

Telangana-505209

7095829508

.….Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Colliers Company Ltd., (SCCL),

Srirampur Area, Mancherial District,

Telangana-505303.

….. Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: None

For the Respondent: M/s. Ranjeeth Reddy, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. 1/4/2025-B1 dated 24.07.2025 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. Singareni Colliers Company Ltd., Srirampur Area Miners and Engineering Workers Union

(HMS) and their workmen. The reference is,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9465

SCHEDULE

―Whether the dismissal of Shri Syed Javeed, E.C.No2921147, ex-badli filler, RK.7 Incline, Srirampur Area, by

the management of M/s. Singareni Colliers Company Limited (SCCL), Srirampur Area is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the workman is entitled to?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 182/2025 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2.

Petitioner absent. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to file the claim statement. It appears

that the Petitioner does not want to prosecute the case. Therefore, a ‗No Claim Award‘ is passed. Transmit.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the day of

July, 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 ददल्ली, 13 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1791.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ददल्ली इंटरनेिनल एयरृोटड जलजमटेड ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

–सह–

नं. 1] नई ददल्ली ds iapkV (

129/2024) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS]

[सं. ,y-20013/01/2026-vkbZ- vkj- (सी एम-I)]

जयदीृ यादव, उ

New Delhi, the 13th August, 2026

S.O. 1791.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/20204) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court N0. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management

of Delhi International Airport Ltd. and their workmen,

[No. L-20013/01/2026 – IR (CM-I)]

JAIDEEP YADAV, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

CUM LABOUR COURT DELHI - 1,

NEW DELHI.

ID No.129/2024

Sh. Manoj Kumar and 11 others, through Airport Employees Union, BTR Bhawan, 13A, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi.

…Claimant

Versus

9466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1.

The CEO, M/s CELEBI Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., Cargo Terminal, IGI Terminal,

New Delhi-110037.

2.

The CEO, M/s Delhi International Airport Ltd., Uddan Bhawan IGI Terminal, New Delhi-110037.

…Management

AWARD

Present: None for the Claimant.

Ms. Muskan Kaushik, A/R for the Managements.

1.

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter No-ND-25/I-

110/2023-IR dated 06.05.2024 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Act, for

adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under:

SCHEDULE

‘Whether the services of the workmen Shri Manoj Kumar & 11 others (Details mentioned in Annexure-A)

have been terminated w.e.f. 30.06.2020 illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management of M/s BR Power

Control & Automation Services contractor of M/s CELEBI Delhi Cargo Terminal Management Pvt. Ltd?

If so, then what relief the workmen concerned are entitled and what directions are necessary in this

respect?’

Sh. Manoj Kumar and 11 others Vs. The CEO, M/s CELEBI Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt.

Ltd. and another.

2.

In the endorsement made in reference order, the appropriate Government commanded the parties raising the

dispute to file statement of claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with this Tribunal

within fifteen days of receipt of the reference order and to forward a copy of such statement of claim to the opposite

parties involved in the dispute. Despite directions so given, Claimant opted not to file the claim statement with the

Tribunal.

3.

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the managements. In pursuance

to the notices sent, none appeared on behalf of the claimant. No claim statement was filed on behalf of workman

despite repeated adjournments. Thus, it is clear that the workman is not interested in adjudication of the reference on

merits.

4.

In these circumstances, this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a ‗No Dispute/Claim‘ award. Let

this award be sent to the appropriate Government, as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

for publication.

Date: 12.05.2026

AJAY KUMAR JAIN, Presiding Officer

नई ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1792.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री उग्गीना जवश्वनाधम के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 13/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/21/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1792.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 13/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Uggina Viswanadham which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29011/21/2017-(IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9467

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 13/2018

Between:

Sri Uggina Viswanadham,

S/o Mahalaskmi,

Porlupalem (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047 ......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29011/21/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Uggina Viswanadham, S/o Mahalakshmi, Workman in service in contravention of

section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to

Andhra Cements Company is not legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 13/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of

July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

9468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1793.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री डुप्ृेट्टी रामू के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 21/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/15/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1793.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 21/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Duppeti Ramu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/15/2017-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 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 21/2018

Between:

Sri Duppeti Ramu,

S/o Pydithalli,

Porlupalem (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047 ......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9469

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/15/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Duppeti Ramu, S/o Pydithalli, Workman in service in contravention of section 25(F)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to Andhra Cements

Company is not legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 21/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of July,

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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1794.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री कानुमारेड्डी अप्ृलनायडू के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 22/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/14/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1794.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 22/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Kanumareddy Appalanaidu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/14/2017-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

9470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 22/2018

Between:

Sri Kanumareddy Appalanaidu,

S/o Appili,

Porlupalem (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/14/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Kanumareddy, S/o Appaili, workman in service in contravention of section 25(F) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the post services rendered to Andhra Cements

Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 22/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared

on behalf of the Petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the Petitioner was returned with the endorsement

"Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased Petitioner despite service of notice.

Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered

accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of

July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9471

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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1795.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री एरोथी रामुनायडू के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 27/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/09/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1795.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 27/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Erothi Ramunaidu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/09/2018-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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 27/2018

Between:

Sri Erothi Ramunaidu,

Porlupalem (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

9472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/9/2018-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group

of company in not considering Sri Erothi Ramunaidu, S/o Sanyasi, workman in service in contravention of

section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the post services rendered

to Andhra Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 27/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent.Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1796.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री राृथी कनक राव के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 29/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/07/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9473

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1796.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 29/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Raparthi Kanaka Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/07/2017-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 29/2018

Between:

Sri Raparthi Kanaka Rao,

S/o Gangayya,

Porlupalem (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/7/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Raparthi Kanaka Rao, S/o Gangayya, workman in service in contravention of section

25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the post services rendered to Andhra

Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 29/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

9474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1797.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री राृथी ृायदय्या के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 31/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/05/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1797.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 31/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Raparthi Pydayya which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/05/2017-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 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 31/2018

Between:

Sri Raparthi Pydayya,

S/o Demudu,

Porlupalem (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9475

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/5/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Raparthi Pydayya, S/o Demudu, workman in service in contravention of section

25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the post services rendered to Andhra

Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 31/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of

July, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1798.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री सीजतना देमुडु के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 32/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/04/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

9476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1798.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 32/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Seetina Demudu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/04/2017-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 32/2018

Between:

Sri Seetina Demudu, C/o Appili,

Porlupalam (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531045.

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/4/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Shri Seetina Demudu, C/o Appili, workman in service in contravention of section 25(F)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to Andhra Cements

Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 32/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9477

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1799.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार श्री

जसद्धाथड, मजससड अन्नय बल्क कजररयसड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और जविाखा जजला कॉन्रजक्ट वकडसड यूजनयन (सीटू) के

बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.-

33/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ

11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/59/2017-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1799.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 33/2018) 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 Sri Siddarth, M/s Annaye Bulk Carriers and Visakha district Contract Workers Union (CITU) which

was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-30011/59/2017-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 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 33/2018

Between:

Sri Siddarth,

M/s Annaye Bulk Carriers,

D. No. 1/85, Parmati Road,

Namkal, Tamilnadu – 637001. ......Petitioner

9478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Secretary,

Visakha district Contract Workers Union (CITU),

8-6-8, Yellammathota, Jagadamba Jn.,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) - 530020 …… Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-30011/59/2017-IR(M) dated 12.01.2018

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 Annaye Bulk Carriers, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of M/s Annaye Bulk Carries Contractor of HPCL, Vizag LPG

Bottling Plant, Vishakhapatnam in discontinuing the service of Sh. B. Sanyasi Rao working as a driver

without paying four months‘ salary and full and final settlement is justified? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 33/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of

July, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1800.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री गोम्ृा वेंकटप्ृा राव के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 36/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/10/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9479

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1800.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 36/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Gompa Venkataappa Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/10/2018-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 36/2018

Between:

Sri Gompa Venkataappa Rao,

S/o Simhachalam,

Eppilivanipalem (V),

Chentagatla (Panchayat),

Pendurthi (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/10/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Shri Gompa Venkatappa Rao, S/o Simhachalam, workman in service in contravention

of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to

Andhra Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 36/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

9480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1801.—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार मेससड

आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और श्री

गोम्ृा देमुडु के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 37/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/09/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1801.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 37/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Gompa Demudu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/09/2018-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 37/2018

Between:

Sri Gompa Demudu,

S/o Simhachalam,

Eppilivanipalem (V), Chentagatla (Panchayat),

Pendurthi (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 ......Petitioner

AND

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9481

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/9/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Shri Gompa Venkata Rao, S/o Simhachalam, workman in service in contravention of

section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to

Andhra Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 37/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1802.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री दकल्लानी रामू के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 38/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/08/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

9482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1802.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 38/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Killani Ramu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/08/2018-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 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 38/2018

Between:

Sri Killani Ramu,

S/o Venkappa,

Eppilivanipalem (V), Chentagatla (Panchayati),

Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/8/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Killani Ramu, S/o Venkappa, workman in service in contravention of section 25(F)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the post services rendered to Andhra Cements

Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 38/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9483

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of

July, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1803.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री उग्गीना नागराजू के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 39/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/07/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1803.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 39/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Uggina Nagaraju which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/07/2018-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 39/2018

Between:

Sri Uggina Nagaraju,

S/o Thathalu,

Porlupalam (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047

......Petitioner

AND

9484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/7/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Uggina Nagaraju, S/o Thathalu, workman in service in contravention of section

25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to Andhra

Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 39/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient

opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is

passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1804.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री एजप्ृली थाटा राव के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 40/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/06/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9485

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1804.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 40/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Eppili Thata Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/06/2018-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 40/2018

Between:

Sri Eppili Thata Rao,

S/o Sri Sanyasi, Eppilivanipalem (V),

Chentagatla (Panchayati), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 ......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/6/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Eppili Thata Rao, S/o Sanyasi, workman in service in contravention of section 25(F)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to Andhra Cements

Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 40/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

9486

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1805—औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री एजप्ृली अप्ृलानायडू के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद,

ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 41/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/05/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1805.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 41/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Eppili Appalanaidu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/05/2018-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 41/2018

Between:

Sri Eppili Appalanaidu,

S/o Nookalu, Eppilivanipalem (V),

Chentagatla (Panchayati), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035

......Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9487

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/5/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Eppili Appalanaidu, S/o Nookalu, workman in service in contravention of section

25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to Andhra

Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 41/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim

Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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

9488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1806.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री दसारी डेमुडु के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, हजदराबाद, ृंचाट

(ररफरेन्स न.- 42/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/04/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1806.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 42/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Dasari Demudu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/04/2018-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 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 42/2018

Between:

Sri Dasari Demudu,

S/o Venkanna, Eppilivanipalem (V),

Chentagatla (Panchayati), Pendurthi (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Works, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/4/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजृत्र : अगस्ट् त, 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9489

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Dasari Demudu, S/o Venkinaidu, workman in service in contravention of section

25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the past services rendered to Andhra

Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 42/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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 ददल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2026

का.आ. 1807.— औद्योजगक जववाद अजधजनयम (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय सरकार

मेससड आंध्र सीमेंट्स जलजमटेड, जेृी ग्रुृ, जविाखा सीमेंट वक्सड; मेससड ए़िटेक सर्थवसे़ि के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोजकों और

श्री ृुलामरासेट्टी चाइना सूरी के बीच अनुबंध में जनर्ददष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजधकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

हजदराबाद, ृंचाट (ररफरेन्स न.- 45/2018) को जजसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया हज, प्रकाजित करती हज जो केन्रीय

सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉृी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/01/2018-आईआर(एम)]

सलोनी, उ

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1807.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 45/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Pulamarasetty China Suri which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/01/2018-IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

9490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day of February, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 45/2018

Between:

Sri Pulamarasetty China Suri,

S/o Late Ramunaidu, Padmnabhanagar,

R.R.V. Puram, Gopalapatnam,

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531029

......Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022

…… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: None

For the Respondent

: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/1/2018-IR(M) dated 22.01.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

―Whether the action of the management of Andhra Cements Limited, Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of

company in not considering Sri Pulamarasetty China Suri, S/o Late Ramunaidu, workman in service in contravention

of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or else in not paying legal benefits for the post services rendered to

Andhra Cements Company is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?‖

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 45/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

22.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 23rd day of

February, 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9491

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1808.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री डेमुडु के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 66/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/11/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1808.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 66/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Demudu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/11/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 66/2018

Between:

Sri Demudu,

S/o Late Sanyasi,

D. No. 6-81, Padmanaba Nagar (V), R.R.V.

Puram (Post), Chinnagadhilli (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531029 .….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

9492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/11/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Ch. Demudu, S/o Late Sanyasi, supplied by M/s Aztec

services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group

of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Demudu or Sri Ch. Demudu, S/o Late Sanyasi by

M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010 as alleged by the

management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Ch. Demudu, S/o Late Sanyasi or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Ch. Demudu, S/o Late Sanyasi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 66/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. None appeared on

behalf of the petitioner. Respondent is present. Notice sent to the petitioner was returned with the endorsement

"Expired." No legal representative has come on record on behalf of the deceased petitioner despite service of notice.

Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the case, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered

accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1809.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री कोम्मू अप्पा राव के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 67/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/12/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9493

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1809.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 67/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Kommu Appa Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/12/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 67/2018

Between:

Sri Kommu Appa Rao,

S/o Simhachalam,

Amara Pinnavanipalem, SC Colony,

Peddagollelapalem, Sabbavaram (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) .….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatna, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/12/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Kommu Appa Rao, S/o Simhachalam, supplied by M/s

Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee

Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Kommu Appa Rao or Sri Kommu Appa

Rao, S/o Simhachalam by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010

as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company

(principal employer)?

9494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Kommu Appa Rao, S/o Simhachalam or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Kommu Appa Rao, S/o Simhachalam is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 67/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of

notice by Registered post, petitioner did not file any claim statement. Sufficient opportunity already granted.

Therefore, in the absence of claim statement 'No claim' award is passed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1810.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री गोम्पा बंगारय्या के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 69/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/14/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1810.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 69/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Gompa Bangarayya which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/14/2018- IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9495

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 69/2018

Between:

Sri Gompa Bangarayya,

S/o Chinnamudu,

Eppilivanipalem (V), Chentagatla (Panchayat),

Pendurthi (M), Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 ..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/14/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Gompa Bangarayya, S/o Chinnamudu, supplied by M/s

Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee

Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Gompa Bangarayya or Sri Gompa

Bangarayya, S/o Chinnamudu, by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on

01.10.2010 as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of

company (principal employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Gompa Bangarayya, S/o Chinnamudu, or services is fair, legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Gompa Bangarayya, S/o Chinnamudu, is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

9496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 69/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1811.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री चप्पा डेमुडु के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 70/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/15/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1811.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 70/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Chappa Demudu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/15/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 70/2018

Between:

Sri Chappa Demudu,

S/o Erukulu,Eppilivanipalem (V),

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9497

Chentagatla (Panchayat),

Pendurthi (M), Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 ..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/15/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Chappa Demudu, S/o Erukulu, supplied by M/s Aztec

services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group

of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Chappa Demudu, S/o Erukulu, or Sri Chappa

Demudu, S/o Erukulu, by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010

as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company

(principal employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Chappa Demudu, S/o Erukulu, or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Chappa Demudu, S/o Erukulu, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 70/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

9498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1812.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री कम्परा थाटा राव के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 71/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/16/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1812.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 71/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Kampara Thata Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/16/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 71/2018

Between:

Sri Kampara Thata Rao,

S/o Gangayya,

Padmanadha Nagar (V), Venkatapuram (PO),

Gompalapatnam, Dist.

Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530029 ..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatna, (A.P.) – 530029.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9499

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/16/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Kampara Thata Rao, S/o Gangaya, supplied by M/s Aztec

services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group

of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Kampara Thata Rao or Sri Kampara Thata Rao,

S/o Gangaya, by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010

as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of

company (principal employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Kampara Thata Rao, S/o Gangaya, or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Kampara Thata Rao, S/o Gangaya is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 71/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

Notice sent to the petitioner was returned with the endorsement "Expired." No legal representative has come on

record on behalf of the deceased petitioner despite service of notice. Accordingly, as there is no one to prosecute the

case, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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

9500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1813.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री बोडी अप्पाला राजू के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 73/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/18/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1813.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 73/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Bodi Appala Raju which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/18/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 73/2018

Between:

Sri Bodi Appala Raju,

S/o Potanna,

Eppilivanipalem (V), Chentagatla (Panchayati),

Pendurthi (M), Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 .….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatna, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9501

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/18/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Bodi Appala Raju, S/o Potanna, supplied by M/s Aztec

services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group

of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Bodi Appala Raju or Sri Bodi Appala Raju, S/o

Potanna, by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010 as alleged by

the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal

employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Bodi Appala Raju, S/o Potanna or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Bodi Appala Raju, S/o Potanna is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 73/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient

opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is

passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1814.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री चांिका गसम्हाचलम के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 78/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/24/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

9502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1814.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 78/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Chandaka Simhachalam which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/24/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 78/2018

Between:

Sri Chandaka Simhachalam,

S/o Durgalu,

Eppilivanipalem (V), Chentagatla (Panchayati),

Pendurthi (M), Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 .….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/24/2018-IR(M) dated 16.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Chandaka Simhachalam, S/o Durgalu, supplied by M/s

Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee

Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Chandaka Simhachalam or Sri Chandaka

Simhachalam, S/o Durgalu by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on

01.10.2010 as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of

company (principal employer)?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9503

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Chandaka Simhachalam, S/o Durgalu or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Chandaka Simhachalam, S/o Durgalu is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 78/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient

opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is

passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of July,

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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1815.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री कडुपुतला अप्पा राव के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 79/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/25/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1815.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 79/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Kaduputla Appa Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/25/2018- IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

9504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 79/2018

Between:

Sri Kaduputla Appa Rao,

S/o Venkunaidu,

Eppilivanipalem (V), Chentagatla (Panchayati),

Pendurthi (M), Dist.

Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035

.….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/25/2018-IR(M) dated 16.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Kaduputla Appa Rao, S/o Venkunaidu, supplied

by M/s Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements

Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Kaduputla Appa

Rao or Sri Kaduputla Appa Rao, S/o Venkunaidu by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own

suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010 as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra

Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present

principal employer) in not considering Sri Kaduputla Appa Rao, S/o Venkunaidu for services is fair, legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are

necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works is no paying benefits for the past

services rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Kaduputla Appa Rao, S/o Venkunaidu is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this

regard?”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9505

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 79/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of

notice by Registered post, Petitioner did not file any claim statement. Sufficient opportunity already granted.

Therefore, in the absence of claim statement 'No claim' award is passed. Reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1816.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री िसारी मुसलाय्या के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 81/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/27/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 81/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Dasari Musalayya which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/27/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 81/2018

Between:

Sri Dasari Musalayya,

S/o Late Venki Naidu,

Eppilivanipalem (V), Chentagatla (Panchayati),

Pendurthi (M), Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 .….Petitioner

9506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/27/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Dasari Musalayya, S/o Late Venki Naidu, supplied by

M/s Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements

Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Dasari Musalayya or Sri

Dasari Musalayya, S/o Late Venki Naidu by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped

working on 01.10.2010 as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee

Group of company (principal employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Dasari Musalayya, S/o Late Venki Naidu or services is fair, legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works Sri Dasari Musalayya, S/o Late Venki Naidu is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 81/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9507

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1817.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्रीमती गुरी गंगम्मा के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 96/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/32/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 96/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and

Smt. Guri Gangamma which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/32/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 96/2018

Between:

Smt. Guri Gangamma,

W/o Late Guri Demudu,

Mogalipuram (V), Mallunaidupalem (PO),

Sabbavaram (M), Visakhapatnam (A.P.) - 531035 .….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatna, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

9508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/32/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Late G. Demudu supplied by M/s Aztec services(contractor)

by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal

employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Smt. Guri Gangamma, W/o Late G. Demudu or Late Demudu, ex-workmen,

S/o Late Pyditalli supplied by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on

01.10.2010 as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of

company (principal employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Smt. Guri Gangamma, W/o Late G. Demudu for services rendered by Late G. Demudu

is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what relief Smt. Guri Gangamma, W/o Late G. Demudu the concerned workman

is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works is not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Late Demudu, workmen, S/o Late Pyditalli is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 96/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient

opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is

passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1818.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री पल्ला अप्पा राव के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 97/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/33/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9509

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 97/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Palla Appa Rao which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/33/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 97/2018

Between:

Sri Palla Appa Rao,

S/o Late Simhachalam,

Gullepalli (V), Sabbavaram (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) - 531035 .….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatna, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/33/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Palla Appa Rao, S/o Late Simhachalam, supplied by M/s

Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee

Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Palla Appa Rao or Sri Palla Appa Rao, S/o

Late Simhachalam by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010 as

9510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal

employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Palla Appa Rao, S/o Late Simhachalam or services is fair, legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works is no paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Palla Appa Rao, S/o Late Simhachalam is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 97/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient

opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is

passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1819.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री नम्मी डेमुल्लू के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 98/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/34/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 98/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Nammi Demullu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/34/2018- IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9511

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 98/2018

Between:

Sri Nammi Demullu,

S/oAppalaswamy,

Gullepalli (V), Sabbavaram (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) - 531035 .….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatna, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/34/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Nammi Demullu, S/o Appalaswamy, supplied by M/s

Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee

Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Nammi Demullu or Sri Nammi Demullu,

S/o Appalaswamy by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010 as

alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal

employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Nammi Demullu, S/o Appalaswamy or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works is no paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Nammi Demullu, S/o Appalaswamy is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 98/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

9512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient

opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is

passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of July,

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, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1820.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री पल्ला समुरम के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 99/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/35/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 99/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Palla Samudram which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/35/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 99/2018

Between:

Sri Palla Samudram,

S/o Maridaiah,

Gullepalli (V), Sabbavaram (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) - 531035 .….Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9513

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatna, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/35/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Palla Samudram, S/o Maridaiah, supplied by M/s Aztec

services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group

of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Palla Samusram or Sri Palla Samudram, S/o

Maridaiah by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010 as alleged

by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal

employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Palla Samudram, S/o Maridaiah or services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works is no paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Palla Samudram, S/o Maridaiah is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 99/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement, Petitioner remained absent. Despite service of

notice by Registered post, Petitioner did not file any claim statement. Despite sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has

failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is passed. The reference is answered

accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 2026.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

9514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1821.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री नकेल्ला रामू के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 100/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/36/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 100/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech

Services and Sri Nakella Ramu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/36/2018- IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTREIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 100/2018

Between:

Sri Nakella Ramu,

S/o Appalaswamy,

Gullepalli (V), Sabbavram (M),

Dist.- Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531035 ......Petitioner

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9515

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/36/2018-IR(M) dated 25.10.2018

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 Andhra Cements Limited, and their workman. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Nakella Ramu, S/o Appalaswamy, supplied by M/s Aztec

services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group

of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Nakella Ramu or Sri Nakella Ramu, S/o

Appalaswamy, by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on 01.10.2010 as

alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of company (principal

employer)?

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Nakella Ramu, S/o Appalaswamy, for services is fair, legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works is no paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Nakella Ramu, S/o Appalaswamy, is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 100/2018 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement Petitioner remained absent. Despite

sufficient opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award

is passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 17th day of

July, 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

9516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1822.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

हहिुस्तान पेट्रोगलयम कॉपोरेशन गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और श्री गवनोि पराटे के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, नागपुर, पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 38/2013-14) को जैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[la- ,y-30012/12/2013-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 38/2013-14) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in

relation to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Sri Vinod Parate which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-30012/12/2013- IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

Reserved On 11.06.2026

Delivered on 15.07.2026

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

CASE NO. CGIT/NGP/38/2013-14

Vinod Parate– Petitioner

Vs

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - Management

Present: Shri. Kavimandal for the Petitioner.

N. W. Almelkar advocate for the Management.

1.

In exercise of powers conferred by clause D of sub section 1 and sub section 2-A of section 10 of the

industrial disputes act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (the act in short). The central government has referred the industrial dispute

between the employer in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman

Shri. Vinod Parate, HPCL workers organization in adjudication as per letter No. L-30012/12/2013 IR(M) dt.

18.06.2013 with the following schedule: -Whether the action of the disciplinary authority HPCL, Nagpur in

imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on Shri. Vinod Parate, Chief Administrative Clerk vide his

order dt. 08.08.2012 is just fair and legal? If not to what relief the applicant entitled to?

2.

On receipt of the reference parties were noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement in response to which the workman in short file the statement of claim and the management of HPCL, Party

No. 1 in short file their written statement.

3.

Workman file a statement of claim through the union by asserting that he was appointed in the HPCL as a

clerk on 17.07.1979 at Khapri LPG plant and he was promoted as General Clerk in June 1992 and was posted at LPG

department Nagpur, Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur. He was working their till 1998. In august 1998 he was

transferred to Khapri at Nagpur LPG Regional Office as Senior Assistant. He was working their till the period 2003.

The plant of the Party No. 1 and the offices at Khapri are in the same premises. He was reassigned to Khapri LPG

plant on lateral basis till 2005. In the year 2005 he was again transferred to Nagpur LPG Regional office. In the year

2006 he was promoted as chief administrative assistant. In 2007 he was again transferred at Khapri LPG plant. He

further submits that since the date of his initial joining till his suspension dt. 12.02.2008 he was working sincerely and

honestly with Party No. 1. From the progress of the Party No. 2, it can be seen that he was performing his duty and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9517

was thus on merits was granted permission. The service record of the Party No. 2 is clean excellent and unblemished.

During entire service tenure of the Party No. 2, he was never served with any memo, warning or chargesheet. It is also

contended that the Party No. 2 was union member. The officers of the Party No. 1 were not happy with the progress

of the Party No. 2 and his union activity. Suddenly on 12.02.2008 Party No. 2 was suspended without his fault. While

suspending the Party No. 2 it was alleged that he has committed grievous misconduct for preparing of fake BDS

update option. Since his suspension from 12.02.2008 no action was taken against the Party No. 2 till the chargesheet

dt. 11.09.2009 was issued to him. a chargesheet was issued against the Party No. 2 after almost 1 year and 3 months

which is prohibited under the standing orders applicable to the Party No. 2 establishment. As per the standing order

clause 32(4)(A) statement of charges in detail has to be supplied within 7 days of suspension however in the case of

Party No. 2 the chargesheet was issued after 15 months of suspension information office. On 11.05.2009 he was

suspended and on 12.02.2008 a chargesheet was issued. At the time of suspension, no documents or statements were

supplied to the Party No. 2. The chargesheet dt. 11.05.2009 was issued along with annexure I, II, III and IV. The

charges level in annexure I article of charge 1st A was in respect of preparation of cash receipt and manual fitting the

BDS nos. by using the BDS update option intentionally. Charge B was in respect of fraudulently preparing cash

receipt in the JDE system using Shri.V. G. Paunikers transactions ID in the name of Jeevan Gas agency and

Satyashree Gas company with fictitious cheque no. and in order to enable the dealers to unlawfully gain for

themselves thereby causing financial loss by making false entries by using BDS update option. Chargesheet was in

respect of deliberately misusing ERP excess of Shri. V.G. Paunikar for preparing erroneous BDS nos. by updating

BDS update option causing financial loss to the corporation. Charge D was in respect of neglecting while preparing

in the CR in respect Siva Gas Agency. Charge E was in respect of deliberately concealing all the transaction

concerning movable property including loans and advances. The said misconduct as alleged is covered under the

clauses 6A, 31(4), 31(5), 31(9), 31(15), 31(20), 31(38) and 31(39) of the standing orders applicable to the non-

management employees working in the marketing division of the corporation. It is contended by Party No. 2 that the

charges levelled against the Party No. 2 was false concocted and levelled without having any material evidence along

with the chargesheet dt. 11.05.2009 no relevant documents were supplied to the Party No. 2 in respect of the charges

levelled. The Party No. 2 demanded documents vide letter dt. 18.05.2009 from the Party No. 1. The management

Party No. 1 replied by letter dt. 19.05.2009 and supplied certain documents which were not at all according to the

demand made by the Party No. 2. However, the Party No. 2 without wasting any further time replied to the

chargesheet vide reply dt. 28.05.2009. thereafter the intimation dt. 11.05.2009 was given to the Party No. 2 regarding

appointment of enquiry officer.

4.

The departmental inquiry was conducted against the Party No.2 which was not according to the principals of

natural justice and was continued for a period of more than three months. The Party No. 2 was dismissed from

services on basis of the said enquiry by an order dt. 08/08/2012. Party No.1 management examined total 5 witnesses.

The main charges levelled against the Party No.2 was for the period of 2005 to 2007. It was alleged in the charges that

the Party No. 2 on 8/08/2006 and 16/09/2006 cash receipts were made in favour of Jeevan Gas Agency from Shri.

V.G. Paunikar’s I.D.by the Party No.2 from his computer, though Shri V.G Paunikar was not posted during the said

tenure in Khapri LPG Plant. It was further observed that on 08.08.2006, C.R. was prepared in the name of Jeevan Gas

Agency from D.D No.86599, though no such instrument was ever issued by the bank. Similarly, on 16.09.2006 C.R.

was prepared in the name of Jeevan Gas Agency from D.D No.87172, though the bank had denied issuance of such

D.D in favour of HPCL. Further it was alleged that similar fraudulent entries were made from Shri.V.G Paunikar’s

I.D. though later was not handling the said activities. The memorandum of charges is described in the chargesheet dt.

11.05.2005. It was also further alleged against the Party No.2 that he had offered Mr. Manoj Junghare, the manager of

Jeevan Gas Agency for manipulation of cash receipts and updating the BDS manually so that while generating the

BDS the said cash receipts detailed does not appear and the draft also was not deposited. After recording the evidence

of management witnesses the complainant also submitted his statement of defence. There after enquiry against the

Party No.2 was completed by letter dt. 05.04.2011 the report of the enquiry of dt. 31.03.2011 was sent to the Party

No.2. The Party No.2 submitted his reply on 30.04.2011 there by giving explanation regarding his innocence against

the alleged proved misconduct. However, the Party No.1 Corporation did not consider his explanation and a dismissal

order dt. 08.08.2012 was issued against the Party No.2. That after the said dismissal the Party No.2 filed the reference

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central, Nagpur for conciliation. The Party No. 1 appeared in the matter

and filed his formal reply in the form of denial; nothing was explained by the Party No.1 about the alleged charges of

the misappropriation. That the conciliation ended in failure and was sent to Ministry of Labour and Employment

Government of India referred the matter to the Hon’ble Tribunal for appropriate decision.

5.

The Party No. 2 also contended that the enquiry conducted against the complainant is against the provisions

of law and in violations of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer appointed to conduct the enquiry was an

officer of the corporation. Therefore, an insider cannot be appointed as an Enquiry Officer under the provisions of law

as an Enquiry Officer under the provision of law. As the Enquiry Officer was himself an employee of the corporation

holding a high post, therefore, he was not a natural person to conduct the fair enquiry against the Party No. 2. The

Enquiry Officer was biased, did not conducted the enquiry proceedings in fair manner. The Enquiry Officer did not

explain the gravity of charges levelled against the Party No. 2 and the procedure of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer

did not allow the Party No. 2 to engaged a lawyer so as to defend himself in the enquiry as the charges levelled

9518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against the Party No. 2 was serious and criminal in nature. The charges levelled against the Party No. 2 was for the

period 2005-2007. The Party No. 2 has working at Nagpur LPG Regional Office. The Party No. 2 was reassigned by

letter dt. 05.06.2007 and he joined on 09.06.2007 at Khapri LPG plant. The Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate that

since June 2005 t0 May 2007 the nature of duties of the Party No. 2 was viz. marketing, sales, stationary distribution

cheque preparation and distribution, drafting of Hindi correspondence. The Enquiry Officer totally neglected the fact

that it was not the duty and work of the Party No. 2 to prepare invoices and other BDS invoices, preparation of

receipt, cash receipt preparation, BDS preparation, SV.TV. punching. The Party No. 2 demanded number of

documents by letter dt. 17.06.2010. however, it was not supplied to the Party No. 2 as those documents were

supporting the defence and was very much relevant for fair trial of the enquiry. That non supply of relevant

documents to the Party No. 2 though demanded several times amounts to denial of opportunity to defend himself in

the enquiry. The Party No. 2 was charge-sheeted for the work for which he was not responsible. The charges

regarding preparation of cash receipts entry is that the dealers sent the cheque or demand drafts to the office. The

person responsible for doing the said work prepares the cash receipt and it is kept outside and after the entry the stock

is release to dealer. The dealer’s man then takes away the receipt. However, by dealing with the said charges the

Enquiry Officer was totally neglected though it was pointed out by the Party No. 2 that it was not his duty. The

manager of Jeevan Gas Agency who had complained against the Party No. 2 for 50-50% sharing basis for preparing

false generation of BDS in respect of cash receipt No. 7005044 dt. 25.06.2007 for Rs. 86,000/- and other allied

charges, was not at all called in the enquiry by the management and the Enquiry Officer to verify the truthness of his

complaint. However, the proprietor of the Jeevan Gas Agency was examined in the enquiry by the management as its

witness and as per his deposition he was and hearsay witness and such a witness is absolutely is not permissible when

there are serious allegations of criminal misappropriation of funds. That non examination of the complaint i.e. the

manager of the Jeevan Gas Agency by the management and the Enquiry Officer amounts to denial of opportunity to

the Party No. 2 to defend himself in the enquiry as only on the basis of his statement dt. 23.01.2008 (Exh. M-3), the

said charge was proved against the Party No. 2.

6.

The manager of the Jeevan Gas Agency was a material witness and non-production of material witness in a

trial where criminal charges are levelled against the delinquent employee renders the enquiry illegal and amounts to

denial of opportunity to the Party No. 2. Even his statement Exh. C-2 was not properly considered by the enquiry

officer. The Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the statement and complaint given by the manager of the

Jeevan Gas Agency against the Party No. 2 was written on the letter head of Jeevan Gas Agency. This clearly goes to

show that entire affair was managed to falsely implicated the Party No.2. Further the Enquiry Officer conducted the

enquiry and the evidence procedure in a very illegal manner. That the recording of evidence of the management

witnesses was recorded only in question-and-answer form. Because of such recording of evidence all the relevant

facts, questions were put by the management representative in the mouth of the management witnesses. This has also

prejudiced the right of the delinquent employee as the witnesses were prompted and tutored and direct suggestions

were given to them which is not permissible under the law.

7.

All the documents supplied were in incomplete form and therefore, the Party No. 2 could not defend himself

in the enquiry. Further, in respect of allegation regarding undue credit given to the SIBA Gas Agency alleging that the

Party No. 2 had prepared cash receipt No. 4014214 dt. 15.02.2005 which was made on 30.12.2004 against the cheque

of Rs. 20,869/- from the said gas agency and further CR was not reflected in the BDS print out and latter on cheque

was debited in HPCL account on 25.02.2005. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer totally neglected the said fact

that the said agency is located at Amravati District and it was an out-station instrument and a post-dated cheque. The

Party No. 2 was not at all responsible for a clearing process for the outstation cheques. Further in case the credit given

to said gas agency or any other agency it is the practice of the corporation to issue credit letter to the concerned dealer

upon the instruction of SRM of HPCL. However, all these documents were not at all brought on record by the

management and even not supplied to the Party No. 2 though demanded. The Party No. 2 has filed number of

documents under C-3 clearly demonstrating his bank entries and accounts, loan and advances taken by him from

various institutions including new Nagpur Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd, Nagpur. Further the Party No. 2

also submitted the certificates of the architect regarding estimated cost of the construction which he was undertaking

further the Party No. 2 also filed valuers certificate on records. The Party No. 2 had also filed documents relating to

sanctioned on loan from Government employees provident fund scheme. All relevant documents regarding the said

loan were also filed on record. The Party No. 2 had elaborately described and clarified the financial transition vide

Exh. C-3 in the enquiry. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for clause-6(A) of the standing orders. However,

the Enquiry Officer totally turned a blind eye in respect of the said submission and documents produced on record.

This clearly goes to show that the Enquiry officer was biased and was only acting on the instructions of the

management. The findings recorded in the enquiry report therefore, are perverse and therefore, liable to be quashed

and set aside. The enquiry conducted against the Party No. 2 is therefore, illegal and against the principles of natural

justice and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. Looking to the charges levelled against the Party No. 2 and

the material placed on record, the punishment awarded to the Party No. 2 is shockingly disproportionate.

8.

The Party No. 2 further submits that since many years the Party No.2 was sincerely and honestly working

with Party No.1 management. The Party No.2 was made a scapegoat in the present matter only to save the skin of

higher officials of the management who were having cordial relations with some dealers. That the Enquiry Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9519

being an insider was a puppet in the hands of management of the Party No.1. Therefore, it was but natural that he

gave a report where in charges were proved against the Party No.2. The enquiry report is seems as written by the

management and signed by the enquiry officer. The entire enquiry report is based on surmises and conjuncture. The

enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer suffers from non-application of mind to the facts of this case charges

levelled and evidence and documents based on record the entire enquiry was conducted one sided as none of the

pleadings submissions documents and evidence of the complainant was considered by the enquiry officer. Therefore,

it can be said that the said enquiry proceedings were conducted ex- party though the Party No. 2 was present in the

enquiry. The entire enquiry proceedings was a smoke screen and was a farce only to eliminate the Party No. 2. The

Party No. 2 is having good service record and was not even issued with a warning for memo during his entire service

period. That the Party No.2 has a family to maintain and the elder son of the Party No. 2 is seeking education in

engineering college and the daughter of the Party No. 2 is also seeking higher education in college. Due to such

charges levelled against the Party No. 2, the Party No.2 has suffered mental and physical harassment and trauma of

the society since the date of his suspension as serious charges of criminal nature were levelled against the Party

No.2.That even Party No.2 has been isolated by the society and the people around him are even avoiding the Party

No.2 due to the said allegation. The entire family of the Party No.2 has been demonstrated by the said charges. That

even the wife and the children of the Party No.2 had to face humiliation in the society whenever they go out. That

since the date of his dismissal the Party No.2 is out of service and is unable to carry forward education of children in

these hard days life and is unable to maintain his family. The Party No.2 has no other source of income to maintain

himself and his family. He is therefore entitle to be reinstated in services with continuity and full back wages along

with consequential benefits.

9.

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this honourable authority may kindly be pleased to declare that

the enquiry conducted against the Party No.2 on the basis of chargesheet dt 11.05.2009 and further to pass and award

in affirmative as per the schedule given above in the interest of justice. Direct the Party No.1 to reinstate the Party

No.2 on his former post with continuity of service, full back wages and along with all other consequential benefits.

10.

Per Contra, management filed a written statement asserting that factual position regarding workman his

qualification and transfer are all a matter of record but it is denied that he was suspended without his fault and all of a

sudden. According to him he had conducted serious misconduct for preparing fake BDS update option. Even

otherwise, the Order of suspension dt. 12.02.2008 is a matter of record. It is true that the Party No. 2 came to be

charge-sheeted on 11.05.2009. it is submitted that after the party no. 2 came to be suspended in February 2008, the

management of HPCL was required to carefully go through various office transaction to which the workman, Shri.

Parate was a party. Hence it requires thorough preliminary investigation. Hence, it requires some time for the

management to issue the charge-sheet. However, it is absolutely false and hence denied that there was any bar or

prohibition under the standing orders, applicable to the Party No. 2, to issue the charge sheet after one year and three

months. It is also false and hence denied that the standing orders, and Clause 32-4(a) in particular required that

Statement of Charges in detail must be supplied to the delinquent workman within seven days of his suspension. It is

not correct for the party no. 2 to allege that he was suspended on 11.05.2009 and that charge sheet was issued on

12.02.2008. In fact, the factual position is just opposite. He was suspended on 12.02.2008 and charge-sheet came to

be issued on 11.05.2009. It is true that at the time when order of suspension pending enquiry was issued to him, no

documents were supplied to him. The charge sheet issued to the party no. 2 along with its annexures etc. are,

however, a matter of record. It is true that he was called upon to submit his written reply/ explanation to the charge-

sheet within a period of three days. It is also true that several documents were supplied to the party no. 2 along with

the charge sheet.

11.

The HPCL Management would like to submit with emphasis that the said charge-sheet along with all its

Annexures and documents etc. are matter of record. The said charge-sheet, its Annexures and the relevant documents

were supplied to him when his explanation was called in the matter. The first charge levelled against the Delinquent

workman was that while working as Chief Administrative Assistant at Khapri LPG Plant, he had acquiesced and

connived in committing fraud, dishonesty, wilful falsification, breach of rules/ violation of procedure and that he

prepared cash receipts, manually feeding the BDS numbers by using the “BDS update option” intentionally. All the

particulars of this particular charge were incorporated in the charge-sheet. The next charge or charge B against the

workman was in respect of fraudulently preparing cash receipts in the “JDE system” using one Shri. V. G. Paonikar’s

Transaction ID in the name of “Jeevan Gas Agency” and “Satyashree Gas Company” with fictitious cheque numbers,

though the dealers confirmed that no such cheques were ever issued by them in favour of HPCL, in order to enable

the dealers to unlawfully gain for themselves thereby causing financial loss to HPCL. Particulars of this charge were

also furnished to him through the charge-sheet. The next charge or ‘Charge C’ was in respect of deliberately

misusing the ERT access of Shri V. G. Paunikar for preparing erroneous BDS numbers by updating “BDFS update

operation” in order to facilitate the Dealer to cause wrongful gain to themselves and for causing financial loss to the

Corporation. All the details of this particular charge were also furnished through the said charge-sheet. The next

charge or charge D was in respect of negligence while preparing CR in respect of “SIBA Gas Agency” which resulted

in delayed credit of the instrument against which the BDS was prepared. The next and the last charge or charge E was

in respect of deliberately concealing all the transactions concerning movable property (including loans, advances

taken by him, whether secured or not) owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of his family members,

9520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

though the value of such property exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. Particulars of this charge were also furnished to him through

the charge-sheet dt. 11.05.2009. it is true that these charges were levelled against the Party No. 2 workman under

clauses 6(a), 31(4), 31(5), 31(9), 31(15), 31(20) and 31(38) of the certified standing orders applicable to the workman.

12.

It is incorrect for the Party No. 2 to allege that along with the charge-sheet dt. 11.05.2009, relevant

documents were not supplied to him. It is true that the Party No. 2 had demanded certain documents vide his letter dt.

18.05.2009 and that the Management had supplied certain documents along with the covering letter dt. 19.05.2009. It

is, however false and hence denied that these documents supplied to him were not as per the demand made by the

Party No. 2. The Management would like to submit that the documents which were relevant and which pertained to

the charges of misconduct levelled against the workman were supplied to him. It is true that the workman had

submitted his written explanation dt. 28.05.2009 in response to the charge-sheet dt. 11.05.2009.

13.

It is true that the Departmental Enquiry continued for a period of more than three years. It is also true that

after conducting the Enquiry, since the charges of misconduct levelled against the Party No. 2 were duly proved, he

was dismissed from service vide order dt. 08.08.2012. The management would like to reply upon the enquiry record,

the proceedings of the Enquiry, oral and documentary evidence, led before the Enquiry Officer and the findings of the

Enquiry Officer, in order to avoid unnecessary elaboration and to avoid confusion. It is, however, absolutely false and

hence denied that HPCL did not consider his explanation and a dismissal order dt. 08.08.2012 came to be passed

overlooking his defence. It is true that after he came to be dismissed from service, the Party No. 2 workman raised an

industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Nagpur. The matter was admitted for

conciliation by the said Authority. Conciliation Proceedings were initiated. It is true that HPCL appeared before the

said Authority in Conciliation Proceedings, filed its reply etc. However, there was no possibility of amicable

settlement of the dispute during the Conciliation Proceedings. Hence, Conciliation Proceedings ended in failure.

Failure Report was sent by the said Authority to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi. The said

Ministry then referred the matter to this Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication.

14.

It is absolutely false and hence specifically denied that the Departmental Enquiry conducted against the Party

No. 2 was against the principles of natural justice, it was conducted illegally and without following proper procedure.

It is equally false and hence denied that the Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is false. In fact, from the

pleadings of the workman in the foregoing paragraphs of the Statement of Claim itself. It could be seen that even the

workman has not disputed the fact that all fair and reasonable opportunity was extended to him by the Enquiry Officer

to participate in the Enquiry and meet the charges of misconduct levelled against him. Further, he himself has

admitted that he has participated in the Enquiry and meet the charges of misconduct levelled against him. Further, he

himself has admitted that he has participated in the Enquiry fully, that all the Management witnesses were examined

in his presence, that he had cross-examined the Management witnesses, that he had submitted his written defence

statement before the Enquiry Officer, that a copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to him, that he

had submitted his reply/comments on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that only thereafter he came to be

dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority, only when it was found that the charges of misconduct levelled

against him were duly proved in the Enquiry. It is submitted that those proven charges constituted a serious

misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the Party No. 2 workman. Therefore, the claim of the

Party No. 2 that he was denied the opportunity to defend himself in the Enquiry etc. has no legs to stand and as such,

the present Reference deserves to be answered in negative, against the Party No. 2 workman and in favour of the

Party No. 1 Management.

15.

It is also false and denied that the Enquiry conducted against the Party No. 2 workman was against the

provisions of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is equally false and hence denied that HPCL

Management had no authority under the Certified Standing Orders to appoint one of its officers as the Enquiry

Officer. In fact, there is absolutely no bar under those Standing orders to appoint an officer within the Organization to

conduct a Departmental Enquiry against the charge-sheeted employee. Therefore, the Party No. 1 acted well within its

rights to appoint one of its officers as the Enquiry Officer. It is also false and hence denied that the Enquiry Officer

was biased against the Party No. 2 workman and that he did not conduct the Enquiry in a fair manner. It is also false

that the gravity of charges of misconduct levelled against the workman were not explained to him by the Enquiry

Officer. Furthermore, the Delinquent workman had fully understood the charges even before the Party No. 1

Management set up the Departmental Enquiry in as much as, he had already submitted his detailed written

explanation to the charge-sheet. Therefore, at this stage, such an allegation is being levelled by the workman only by

way of an afterthought. Even in the matter of engaging a Lawyer as his Defence Representative, a grievance has been

raised for the first time here. He did not raise this point earlier. Even otherwise, under the Certified Standing Orders

applicable to the workman, he could engage only a co-employee from within the Organization and thus, there was a

specific bar for him to engage an outsider to defend himself, even if his representative was a lawyer by profession. It

is false and hence denied that the charges of misconduct against the workman were such that they warranted the

workman to engage a lawyer as his Representative.

16.

The Party No. 2 workman has touched upon the documentary evidence that was placed by HPCL before the

Enquiry Officer, in certain grounds raised by him. It is, therefore, submitted that the oral and documentary evidence

forms a part and parcel of the Enquiry Proceedings and as such, the Party No. 1 would like to rely upon the same in

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9521

support of its contention that the charges of misconduct were satisfactorily proved against the workman. It is,

however, false and hence denied that the Enquiry Officer neglected the facts and documents on record. As regards

supply of documents, it is submitted that all those documents which were relevant and which were directly connected

with the charges of misconduct levelled against the workman were supplied to him. the documents which were

irrelevant and had no nexus with the charges of misconduct were not required to be produced and were not supplied to

him. it is, therefore, not correct for the workman to allege that material documents were not supplied to him. it is false

and hence denied that the Party No. 2 was charge-sheeted for the work for which he was not responsible. It is equally

false and hence denied that charges regarding preparation of cash receipts were false and fabricated. In fact, these

charges have been duly proved in the Enquiry with the help of large number of documents and the Enquiry Officer

has held, in no uncertain terms, that the charges were very much proved against the workman.

17.

It is submitted that examination of witnesses and leading appropriate oral and documentary evidence before

the Enquiry Officer in support of the charges of misconduct was the prerogative of the Management. It is, therefore,

not open for the Party No. 2 to allege that material witnesses were not examined in the Enquiry. If at all the workman

felt that any particular person was a key or material witness, nothing prevented him from examining the said person as

a defence witness. The burden to prove charges lay on the shoulders of the Management and that burden has been

duly discharged by the Management, that enquiry has been conducted in an illegal manner. It is also false and hence

denied that by recording evidence of the witnesses in question-and-answer form, any prejudice was caused to the

workman. Most importantly, the workman has not raised any grievance in the matter during the course of Enquiry.

These allegations are being levelled for the first time by way of an afterthought. As such, they could not be sustained

at all. It is also false and hence denied that the documents which were supplied to the workman on demand were in

incomplete form and therefore, the Party NO. 2 could not defend himself in the Enquiry as alleged. Even these

allegations are being levelled for the first time and it clearly shows that this is nothing but an attempt on part of the

workman to find fault with the Management at every level, realising duly well that his dismissal from service was

quite evidence after the charges of misconduct were proved against him. It is true that a large number of documents

were placed on record by the Party No. 2 workman in defence. It is, however, absolutely false for him to allege that

his documents were not properly appreciated or taken into account by the Enquiry Officer while appreciating the

evidence on record. It is equally false and hence denied that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the workman and

that he was acting only under the instructions of the Management. It is also false and hence denied that the findings of

the Enquiry Officer are perverse and that they are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is equally false and hence

denied that the punishment awarded to the Party No. 2 is shockingly disproportionate. It is submitted that the charges

of misconduct which were proved against the workman in the Enquiry were extremely serious as they included the

charges of dishonesty, misappropriation etc. Therefore, it was just not possible for the Disciplinary Authority to take

any lenient view in the matter. In fact, while ordering his dismissal from service, all the aggravating and extenuating

circumstances of the case were taken into consideration including past service record of the workman. And on the

basis of overall analysis of all those facts, it was thought fit and proper by the Management to dismiss him from

service. It is false and hence denied that the Party No. 2 workman was performing his duties sincerely and honestly as

alleged. It is also denied that the Enquiry Officer was a puppet in the hands of the Management and hence he

submitted the Enquiry Report holding the workman guilty of the charges of misconduct as alleged by him. it is denied

that the Enquiry Report suffers from non-application of mind to the facts of the case and evidence on record. It is

equally false and hence denied that the entire Enquiry was conducted one sided and that the pleadings of the workman

in defence and the documents placed on record by him were not considered by the Enquiry Officer. It is absolutely

false and hence denied that the Enquiry proceedings were conducted ex-parte. In fact, the Party No. 1 Management is

at a loss to understand as to how the workman can describe the Enquiry as ex-parte when he has taken part in the

Enquiry throughout. All these allegations appear to have been levelled by the workman by way of an afterthought and

out of frustration.

18.

It is false and hence denied that the past service record of the workman is neat and clean. He has tried to

explain his family background, that his children are undergoing education etc. However, the workman has no right to

gain any sympathy out of this in as much as the disciplinary action has been taken against him after conducting full-

fledged Departmental Enquiry and after the charges of misconduct were proved against him. the allegations of

physical and mental harassment isolation in the society, etc. are false, most irrelevant and unsustainable. If at all he

and his family have to suffer, as contended by him, the Party NO. 2 has to blame himself for the same. Had he

discharged his duties sincerely and honestly, there would have been no question of any disciplinary action against

him. It is, therefore, false ad hence denied that he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back

wages along with consequential benefits. In fact, the statement of claim as filed is false, frivolous and misconceived.

It is devoid of substance. It deserves to be answered in negative. The workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever

prayed for by him in the prayer clause of his statement of claim.

19.

From perusal of record, it is apparent that on the point of validity of departmental enquiry my predecessor

has observed on 08.01.2019 that the departmental enquiry held against the workman is legal proper and in accordance

with the principles of natural justice and after that this case was listed for hearing on the question of perversity of

findings and quantum of punishment. In view of this my learned predecessor has passed an order on 05.03.2020 on

9522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this point and found that the finding of Enquiry Officer not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and

did not consider the defence taken by the workman and did not give cogent reason before giving any observation

regarding finding. Therefore, it is hold that finding is perverse and required to be proved before this tribunal. So, in

the light of the above observation an opportunity to the management has been given to prove the misconduct of the

workman before this tribunal. In the compliance of this order, management has adduced his evidences which is Sr.

No.1 to 40 as per list dt. 09.04.2014. The management has adduced two additional documents as per list dt.

08.04.2025. It is also noteworthy that management has examined Shri Jeevan Singh as MW-1 and Shri Rakesh Kumar

Vaimanya MW-2 and Shri Madhukar MW-3 and Shri Kamlesh Seth MW-4 in support of his contention. No other oral

witness has been examined on behalf of the management.

20.

Per contra, applicant/ petitioner has filed documentary evidence as per list dt. 02.09.2013 to 1 to 8

documents. All these documents are related with this enquiry and two other additional documents has also been

produced by the applicant/ petitioner which are Exhibit No. W-I and W-II and Shri Vinod Anandrao Parate has been

examined as PW-1 in support of the contentions of the petitioner/applicant. No other witnesses have been examined

on behalf of the petitioner/applicant.

21.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. It is

contended by the applicant/petitioner that he came to be appointed with Party No. 1 on 17.07.1989 as a clerk at

Khapri Plant. The duty of Party No. 2 was as per the shift. Party No. 2 on the basis of good performance was

promoted as general clerk in June 1992 and was posted at LPG Department, Nagpur Regional Office, Sadar Nagpur.

He was working on the said post till 1998. Thereafter, he was transferred to Khapri at Nagpur LPG Regional Office as

Senior Assistant. He was working their till the period 2003. In the year 2005 he was again transferred to Nagpur LPG

Regional office. In the year 2006 he was promoted as chief administrative assistant and in June 2007 he was again

transferred to Khapri LPG Plant. It is also alleged that he was a union member of the employees of Party No. 1 and

Party No. 1 was not happy with the union activities of Party No. 2. Suddenly on 12.02.2008 the Party No. 2 was

suspended without any fault on the part of Party No. 2 by alleging that he has committed a grievous misconduct for

preparing of fake BDS option. Party No. 2 was suspended on 12.02.2008 but no chargesheet was served on the Party

No. 2 for more than a year and on 11.05.2009 chargesheet was issued by Party No. 1 which is prohibited under the

standing orders applicable to the Party No. 1 and 2 as per standing orders clause 32-4(a) statement of charges has to

be supplied within 7 days of suspension order but in the present case charge sheet was issued to the Party No. 2 by the

Party No. 1 after 15 months of suspension order.

22.

It is also contended that chargesheet dt. 11.05.2009 was issued to the Party No. 2 along with annexure I-IV.

The charges level in annexure I charge Ist A was in respect of preparation of cash receipt and manually feeding the

BDS nos. by using the BDS update option intentionally. Charge B was in respect of fraudulently preparing cash

receipts in the JDE system using transactions ID Shri.V. G. Paunikers in the name of Jeevan Gas agency and

Satyashree Gas company with fictitious cheque nos. in order to enable the dealers to unlawfully gain for themselves

delivery of LPG cylinders without paying money to Party No. 1 thereby causing financial loss to the corporation by

making false entries by using BDS update option. Charge C was in respect of deliberately using ERP excess of Shri.

V.G. Paunikar for preparing erroneous BDS nos. causing financial loss to the corporation. Charge D was in respect of

neglecting while preparing in the CR in respect Siva Gas Agency. Charge E was in respect of deliberately concealing

all the transaction concerning movable property including loans and advances. It has been argued on behalf of the

respondent that the aforesaid act on the part of the workman constituted misconduct under clauses 6A, 31(4), 31(5),

31(9), 31(15), 31(20), 31(38) and 31(39) of the certified standing orders applicable to the workman.

23.

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that it is well settled position of law that when the

disciplinary enquiry is proved to be conducted following the principles of natural justice and penalty imposed is found

to be commensurate to the charges levelled and duly proved the industrial tribunal should not interfere with the

disciplinary authority’s order. In support of charge-sheet dt. 11.05.2009 management has laid his evidence the first

witness examined by HPCL Shri. Jeevan Singh Son of Nwalsingh wayam as MW-1 who confirm that as per the

procedure laid down by HPCL for every Gas Agency his agency was also required to first deposit the amount/money

in the office of HPCL against the LPG Cylinders which were collected by the said gas agency from the LPG Bottling

Plant of HPCL situated at Khapri Wardha Road Nagpur and after deposit of such amount his agency was allowed to

lift/ collect LPG Cylinders from its Khapri LPG plant. MW-1 deposed that he had engaged one Shri. Manoj

Jhunghare as the manager in his Gas Agency. Shri Junghare used to visit bank and he used to purchase demand draft

in the name of HPCL after depositing the same in the office of HPCL he used to collect loads of filed gas cylinders

from Khapri LPG Plant. The MW-1 pointed out that he was not highly educated and had studied up to 12th standard

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9523

and hence he had engaged the service of Shri. Junghare as a manager of the agency to handle and operate the office

computers maintain accounts including cash collection, purchase of demand draft from the bank etc. The MW-1 also

pointed out that he posed confidence in his manager Shri Junghare and as such Shri Jeevan Singh used to visit the gas

agency on 2-3 occasions in a week. The incident occurred in the year 2007, Shri Manoj Junghare the manager had

played a fraud and cheated HPCL by not depositing the demand drafts before lifting the load from LPG Bottling Plant

HPCL at Khapri when the mis-chief came to the notice of the witness. Shri Jhunghare stopped reporting for duties in

the agency and also fail to submit details of account cash transactions. MW-1 has written a letter dt. 20.03.2008 which

is most relevant in this case. The letter dt. 20.03.2008 written by Jeevan Singh is reproduced here as under which is in

Hindi.

izfr

lsok esa]

izca/kd lkgsc]

fgUnqLrku isVksfy;e dkWiksZj'ku fyfeVsM]

[kkijh {ksf+=; dk;kZy;] ,y- ih- th- IykaV]

[kkijh ukxiqj¼Ek- jk-½

fo"k;% nsus ckdh Hkqxrku laca/k esaA

egk'k;]

eSa thouflax uoyflax ok;e thou xSl ,tsalh [kkik dk izksizk;Vj gwWaA eSa thou xSl ,tsalh

[kkik ,tsalh 2004 esa ,l- Vh- dWVWxjh esa LFkkfir gqbZ FkhA eq>s cSafdaXk dk dke iwjk ugha vkrk FkkA esjs

,tsalh dk dke eWustj eukst tqu?kjs jk- dGes’oj djrk FkkA buds tfj, ls eSa daiuh ds Mh- Mh- tek

djuk] yksM mBkuk] eky cspuk daI;wVj dk dke] vkWfQl dke vkSj iSls dh ysu nsu djrk FkkA eSa ,tsalh

es alIrkg esa 2&3 ckj tkrk FkkA

daiuh fd rjQ ls eq>s irk pyk gekjs eSustj us CkSadls Mh- Mh- u ysrs gq, iSls dh daiuh ds

lkFk /kks[kk/kMh dhA

fiNys ,d efgus ls ,tsalh esa vkuk can dj fn;k vkSj iSls dh ysu nsu crk ugha ik jgkA mUgsa

iSls fd /kks[kk/kMh djus ls eSa [kqn vkWfQl esa iSls dk O;Okgkj ns[k jgk gwWaA eSa eukst tqu?kjs n~okjk dh

xbZ lHkh xyfr;ksa dk izks- gksus ds ukrs ftEesnkjh ysrk gwWaA

daiuh dh rjQ ls tks Hkh iSls fudyrs gSaSA lHkh iSls dk Hkqxrku ,d ekg esa ,d yksM ds iSls tek djrk

tkmWaxkA fna- 30-09-2008 rd iwjs iSls Hkqxrku d:axkA

vc eSa [kqn ,tsalh dk dke ns[krk gwWa vkSj izfrfnu ,tsalh esa tkrk gwWaA Hkfo"; esa ,slh nqckjk

xyrh ugha gksxhA d`Ik;k eq>s xyrh lq/kkjus dk flQZ ,d ckj ekSdk nhft,A

izksizk;Vj

thouflax uoyfalax ok;e

24.

In this letter the proprietor gave an undertaking to HPCL that he would deposit the entire amount against the

already lifted load of gas cylinders from the said LPG Plant on or before 30.09.2008. The MW-1 also tendered an

apology to the management through the said letter and assured it that he would herein after personally look after the

affairs of his gas agency. MW-1 has stated further in his evidence that on 23.01.2008 his manager shri Manoj

Junghare had submitted a letter to HPCL when he was questioned by the management of HPCL about the fraud and

misappropriation committed by him. said letter is at exhibit M-24 which is reproduced for ready reference here as

under. This letter is also in Hindi.

9524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ikzfr]

Okfj"B {ksf=; izca/kd]

Ukxiqj ,y- ih- th- {ks+=h; dk;kZy;]

[kkijh ukxiqj

fo"k;%& Mh- Mh- 93411 fnukad 25-06-2007 : 86000@& ds lanHkZ esaA

egksn;]

eSa eukst /kujktth tqu?kjs eSa thou xSl ,tsalh [kkik esa eSustj in ij dk;Zjr gwWaA eSa ,tsalh esa

cSad dk iwjk dke] daiuh esa Mh- Mh- Hkstuk] daiuh ls yksM eaxokuk] yksM izkIr djuk rFkk flysaMj forj.k

djuk ;g lkjs dke dks eSa [kqn ns[krk gwWaA

eq>s twu 2007 ekg ds rhljs lIrkg esa daiuh [kkijh ,y- ih- th- l;ar esa dk;Zjr Jh fouksn

ijkrs ls vkWQj uhps fy[ks vuqlkj vk;k FkkA

eSa daiuh esa yksM eaxokus ds fy, Mh- Mh- tek djus ds ckn mldh uxn jlhn cukus rFkk ml

Mh- Mh- ds cnys yksM fey tkus ds ckn ;g Mh- Mh- oks [kqn eq>s oks Mh- Mh- daiuh ls okil djsaxsA

mlds ckn eq>s oks Mh- Mh- dSafly djds Mh- Mh- jk’kh ds vk/ks iSls mUgsa nsus gksaxs vkSj vk/ks iSls eq>s bl

dke ds feysaxsA

mudk ;g vkWQj Lohdkj djus dk dkj.k ;g gS fd esjh eukst /k- tqu?kjs fd O;fDrxr vkfFkZd

ifjfLFkrh Bhd u gksus ds dkj.k ykyp esa vkkdj eSus Lohdkj dj fy;kA

esjh ,tsalh ls 25-06-2007 dks yksM ds fy, LVsV cWad vkWQ bafM;k] lkousj ‘kk[kk ls Mh- Mh-

fudkyk x;kA Mh- Mh- uacj 93411 : 86000@& fnukad 25-06-2007 dks daiuh esa Hkstk x;k ftlds

cnys daiuh ls 25-06-2007 dks yksM izkIr gqvkA

fnukad 27-06-2007 dks fouksn ijkrs us Mh- Mh- uacj 93411 okil Hkst fn;kA oks Mh- Mh- eSus

fnukad 28-06-2007 dks Mh- Mh- [kjkc gks tkus dk dkj.k fn[kkdj dSafly fd;k vkSj mlds cnys esa eSus

[kqn ds uke ij cSadj psd cuok;k] mlds pkj fnu ckn eSus og cSadj psd uxn djk fy;kA mlds nks

fnu ckn eq>s fouksn ijkrs dk Qksu vk;kA mUgksaus eq>s iSls ysdj ukxiqj cqyk;kA ukxiqj dks 'kke dks 7

ls 8 cts ds chp mUgsa fcx cktkj ds ikfdZax esa feykA ogkWa mUgsa eSus 43000@& : ckr ds vuqlkj ns

fn,A

esjh vkils fourh gS fd ykyp esa vkdj eSus [kqn ;s dke fd;k gSA bl izdj.k esa eSa thou xSl

,tsalh dk nks”kh u Bgjk;k tkmWa vkSj vkids daiuh ds Jh fouksn ijkrs ds fo:n~/k

dk;Zokgh djsaA

vkidk

eukst tqu?kjs

25.

Through this letter, Shri Junghare had admitted that he fell into a trap when the Workman Shri Vinod Parate,

the then Employee of HPCL, had lured him to commit a fraud and grab money by cheating HPCL. On that occasion,

the Workman had asked Shri Junghare to deposit the Bank Demand Draft of Rs. 86,000/- in HPCL to lift the load of

gas cylinders. A Cash Receipt Number 7005044 dt. 25.06.2007 was prepared and issued by workman Shri Parate in

the said transaction in favour of the Dealer (Mr. Jeevan Gas Agency) for SBI Demand Draft Number 93411 dt.

25.06.2007. Shri Junghare was then supposed to lift the load of gas cylinders. However, the Workman Shri Parate had

promised Shri. Junghare to return the Bank Demand Draft to him with an understanding that Shri Junghare cancel the

Demand Draft and collect the amount against it and then said amount would be shared equally by both of them, i.e.,

Shri Junghare and Workman Shri Parate. Shri Junghare also admitted that he had accepted the aforesaid offer given to

him by workman Shri Parate as he (Shri Junghare) was facing financial problems. Out of greed, to grab money, he

had fallen into the aforesaid trap of workman Shri. Parate.

26.

MW-1 has categorically deposed that accordingly, Shri Junghare had purchased the Demand Draft of Rs.

86,000/- from State Bank of India, Saoner Branch. It was deposited by him in HPCL. Load of gas cylinders was lifted

against the said Demand Draft. Thereafter, the workman returned the Demand Draft to Shri Junghare, who in turn,

deposited the said Demand Draft in the Bank, got it cancelled and against the cancellation of the Demand Draft, he

got issued a Cheque from the Bank in his personal/ own Name. The MW-1 further confirmed in his examination that

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9525

the cheque was deposited and encashed by Shri Junghare at a later stage and the amount of Rs. 86,000/- was equally

shared (Rs. 43,000/- each) by Shri Junghare and workman Shri Parate subsequently. The MW-1 also pointed out that

Shri Junghare had admitted his guilt in his letter dt. 23.01.2008 which is at Exhibit- M-24. Incident was later reported

to him by HPCL and at that stage, he gathered that Shri Manoj Junghare, his the then Manager, had committed a

fraud, in collusion with Workman Shri Parate. It was clearly confirmed out by the MW-1 that after the aforesaid

episode, workman Shri Parate himself had contacted the MW-1 on phone with an assurance that whatever amount he

had received through a deal with Shri Manoj Junghare would be returned by him to the MW-1. In is every vital and

convincing deposition the MW-1 categorically stated that the workman Shri Parate had also requested him on that

occasion to withdraw the letter which was submitted by him to HPCL about the aforesaid illegal transaction involving

Shri. Junghare and the workman.

27.

The MW-1 stated that there were similar instances in the year 2005-2006 also when HPCL had informed him

that although no Demand Drafts were issued by the Bank in favour of HPCL for lifting the load of gas cylinders, Cash

Receipts were issued in the name of his Gas Agency which had ultimately caused pecuniary loss to HPCL. The MW-

1 also pointed out that since he was totally unaware about these illegal transactions in the initial stage, he had lodged a

Police Complaint with the Station Officer, Police Station, Khapa on 26.03.2008. Attention of this Hon’ble Tribunal is

also drawn to the Police Complaint lodged by the MW-1 with Police Station, Khapa on 26.03.2008 which was filed

on record at Serial No. 10 along with the List of Documents dt 09.04.2014. The contents of the said Police

Complaints support and corroborate what the MW-1 has deposed in his evidence before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

During the Cross-examination the MW-1, reiterated his deposition what he alleged in the examination-in-chief

further, when a question was put to the witness by this Court, the MW-1 maintained as it is and stated that Manoj

Junghare had committed a fraud against HPCL as well as M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency. From the aforesaid evidence and

particularly the Cross-examination of the MW-1, it could be seen that the Witness has maintained and has stood by

what he as deposed in his affidavit/examination in chief and there is absolutely nothing in his cross examination to

disbelieve his testimony. It may also be kept in mind here that Shri Junghare has committed fraud at the instance of

workman as Shri Parate had lured him and Shri Junghare had fallen into the trap laid down by workman Shri Parate in

as much as Shri Junghare was suffering from financial crisis and wanted to make quick money. Shri Jeevan Singh has

lodged a Police Complaint against Shri. Junghare and his other companion who jointly has committed fraud in a

normal course no person would lodge a false police complaint.

28.

The testimony of Shri Jeevan Singh is consistent, trustworthy and in tune with the documents placed on

record, particularly Exhibit M-22, Exhibit M-24 and also the Police Complaint lodged by him with Police Station,

Khapa. The defence has not been able to falsify or discredit the testimony of this particular witness. Not only this

applicant/petitioner has never denied the contents written in Exhibit M-22 and M-24. Jeevan Singh has admitted in his

letter dt. 20.03.2008 Exhibit M-22 that the fraud has been committed by his manager Manoj Junghare in connivance

with the officer of the HPCL and the letter which is written by Manoj Junghare on 23.01.2008 addressed to the

HPCL. The commitment of fraud has also been admitted by the Manoj Junghare with the connivance of Shri Vinod

Parate. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant has never denied in whole of the Statement of Claim. Vinod

Parate has also been examined in his defence as PW-1 but in his chief as well as in his cross-examination he never

denied the averments written in the letter dt. 23.01.2008 Exhibit M-24 and letter dt. 20.03.2008 Exhibit M-22. The

applicant/ petitioner and his counsel if not denied it means the contents written in those letters are impliedly admitted

to the applicant.

29.

The Workman Shri Rakesh Kumar Vaimanya MW-2 has also been examined on behalf of the management

to prove the contentions written in the Written Statement. The MW-2 was working as Dy. Manager Finance at Khapri

LPG Plant during the relevant period when the Workman was also employed at the said Khapri LPG Plant. The MW-

2 was posted at Mumbai prior to his transfer to Khapri LPG Plant and he was well conversant with the computerised

system which was introduced at various locations of HPCL throughout India, including Khapri LPG Plant, to keep the

computerised record of accounting and financial transactions. This witness has noticed various discrepancies and

irregularities in the financial transactions in the matter of supply of LPG Gas Cylinders to the Dealers of HPCL,

without actually receiving the amount in the Bank of HPCL against the Cash Receipts. The MW-2 explained that cash

Receipts were prepared by the concerned staff in the office of HPCL at its Khapri LPG Plant, but actually, the

instrument i.e., Demand Drafts/ Cheques were not deposited in the Bank though Bank Deposit Slips (BDS). It was

later revealed during the close scrutiny that those instruments were never deposited in the Bank Account of HPCL

through BDS with the result that it caused huge financial loss to HPCL. In fact, according to the MW-2 although the

instrument for cash receipts were never deposited in the Bank, loads (filled gas cylinders) were released to the dealers.

HPCL did not receive money/ consideration from its Dealers and yet products/ loads were delivered to them. The

MW-2 pointed out that the consideration amount is mandatorily and compulsorily accepted by HPCL from its Dealers

through Banker’s Demand Drafts/ Cheques which are negotiable instruments. However, the words “Cash Receipt”

were used in common parlance in the internal business transactions of HPCL against the Demand Drafts/ Cheques

received from the Dealers.

30.

He further stated that the system generates BDS automatically on giving BDS print command, basis the

details available in the cash receipt. He further mentioned that the user normally gives certain inputs in the system

9526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

through BDS print version and other details are automatically captured by the system from the CRs. The MW-2

further clarified that there is no difference in generation of BDS for post-dated cheques since the system generates

BDS as per the cash receipt due dates only. As to specific query of the PO, the MW-2 admitted that BDS number can

be manually updated in the JDE since such provision is available in the system under cash receipt menu/ program as

“BDS update”. The MW-2 further mentioned that BDS update Option has been provided in JDE to rectify any error

or in a cash receipt for which the BDS in final mode had already been taken. In normal circumstances, one is required

to cancel the incorrect CR which is made with wrong inputs and prepare fresh CRs with correct inputs and manually

update the same with concerned BDS. As to specific query of the PO. The witness stated that wrong inputs meant

inputs such as incorrect customer code, wrong amount, erroneous dates, etc. However, the person using BDS update

option is required to ensure cancellation of the cash receipts made with wrong inputs and make fresh cash receipts and

update the same with the concerned BDS. This witness has also stated that when financial irregularities were noticed

by him and when it was found that Cash Receipts were prepared but instruments were never deposited in the Bank

through BDS, and yet, the load of Gas Cylinders was released in favour of the concerned Dealers of HPCL, he

personally took up the matter with the concerned Dealers and took them into confidence. The MW-2 reconciled their

Accounts and when the Dealers were also satisfied that they had lifted the load without depositing the Demand Drafts/

Cheques in the office of HPCL, the MW-2 was successful in recovering substantial outstanding amounts from such

dealers. This witness also named various Gas Agencies in relation to whom financial irregularities were noticed and

they included M/s Prayagraj Gas Agency, M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency, M/s. Pendam Gas Agency, M/s. Satyashree Gas

Company, etc. it was also revealed by the bankers of these dealers that in certain cases the Demand Draft were not

issued in favour of the HPCL at all by these respective banks. Although cash receipts entries were made in the

computerised system of HPCL at its Khapri Plant.MW-2 referred and deposed the same incident about which the

Proprietor of M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency, Shri Jeevan Singh Wayam (MW-1) had deposed in detail earlier. Since that

part of the deposition of Shri Rakesh Kumar is the corroboration of what is deposed by the MW-1. The MW-2 also

pointed out that the manager of M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency, Shri Junghare had colluded with the Workman, Shri Vinod

Parate, and had defrauded HPCL and had shared the amount involved, between two of them. This witness has also

stated that the proprietor of M/s Jeevan Gas Agency had written a letter dt. 16.04.2008 to the Vigilance Officer of

HPCL. It is as Exhibit M-28. In that letter, the Proprietor had stated that Demand Draft No. 93411 was cancelled by

his manager Shri. Manoj Jhunghare without his knowledge and that the amount was siphoned off from his account.

The MW-2 has referred to Exhibit- M-24, a letter dt. 23.01.2008 in which the Manager, Shri Manoj Junghare had also

admitted that he had committed a fraud in collusion with Workman Shri Parate and that the money was shared by

both of them. This position was confirmed by the MW-1 in his aforesaid letter Exhibit – M-28. It could also be seen

that in the said letter Exhibit M-28, the MW-1 has empathetically stated that on one occasion, workman Shri Parate

had called/ phoned him saying that he (Workman Shri Parate) would refund the money if Jeevan Singh was ready to

withdraw his letter addressed to HPCL. The MW- 2 has then referred to Exhibit- M-29 which is a detailed Statement

prepared by him with regard to recoveries made from various Dealers. It pertains to such cases where Cash Receipts

were made but instruments were not deposited in the Bank of HPCL through BDS. However, due to the efforts made

by the MW-2 substantial recovery was made from the Dealers and that is also reflected in Exhibit- M-29. The MW-2

has further stated that Exhibit M-30 is the extract of JDE Statement reflecting the details of Accounts showing

instruments. These are the Screenshots taken from the computer. After referring to the details in Exhibit M-30, the

MW-2 has pointed out that both these batches were prepared form employee used ID 30070320 which is the

employee ID of the workman. This updation was done manually with a malafide intention, instead of opting for

Automatic System Updating process. The MW-2 has deposed further that State Bank of India, Saoner Branch had

addressed one letter dt. 12.04.2008 to M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency, Khapa. It has been filed on record by the Party No. 1

(HPCL) before this Hon’ble Tribunal, at Serial No. 21 along with the list of documents dt. 09.04.2014. The Bank had

informed inter-alia that although certain Demand Drafts were issued by the Branch in the name of HPCL, there were

as many as five other Demand Drafts for various amounts which were not issued by the Bank in favour of HPCL. The

MW-2 has emphasized that from this letter of bank, it was clear that certain Demand Drafts were not brought to the

Office of HPCL, Khapri LPG Plant and yet Cash Receipts were generated against those Demand Drafts, although

they were not issued in favour of HPCL. Thus, false instruments were generated through computerised system. The

MW-2 concluded his deposition by stating that this particular letter dt. 12.04.2008 issued by State Bank of India,

Saoner Branch, supported his findings that a fraud was committed against HPCL and loads of gas cylinders were

lifted without depositing the Demand Drafts with HPCL as consideration, thereby causing huge financial loss to

HPCL. The said letter of State Bank of India is at Exhibit M-32. The MW-2 during his cross examination confronted

that the workman was working at LPG Regional Office from June 2006 to May 2007 and that he later on worked at

Khapri LPG Plant from 09.06.2007. However, it is pertinent to note here Nagpur LPG Plant are both situated in the

same Office Building within the premises of Khapri LPG Bottling Plant. Therefore, the workman cannot take

advantage of his place of work during these two periods in as much as he was working within the premises of Khapri

LPG Plant on both the occasions. The workman Shri Parate had taken advantage of manual updation facility available

in the computerised system to siphond off money which actually belonged to HPCL by adopting the modous operandi

of making entries of negotiable instruments, Demand Drafts, cheques in the computerised system and along with

dealers to lift the loads of gas cylinders although such negotiable instruments were actually never deposited in the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9527

bank account of HPCL. Again, the document speak for themselves and these documents cannot be brushed under the

carpet as these documents and the deposition of these two witnesses are in tandem and support each other.

31.

Shri Madhukar Igole has been examined as MW-3 in support of the contentions of the management. He has

also supported the contentions as alleged by the management against the delinquent workman Shri. Vinod Parate. He

has been cross-examined by learned counsel for the respondent but this witness has consistently supported the version

of the management which is alleged against the delinquent employee.

32.

The next and the last witness examined by HPCL in the case is Shri Kamlesh Sheth who at the relevant point

of time, was working as Deputy Manager- Finance at West Zone Office, Mumbai. This witness has referred to one

particular incident involving one Shri V. G. Paunikar. Shri Paunikar had submitted a leave application to the

management on 19.12.2005 and had sought one day casual leave for 09.12.2005. leave was sanctioned. However,

although Shri Paunikar was on leave on 09.12.2005, cash receipt No. 5014907 had been prepared against Demand

Draft No. 81072 for an amount of Rs. 86,300/- on that day in favour of M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency by using Shri

Paunikar’s User ID. However, in fact, no such instrument was issued by the State Bank of India and it was

subsequently confirmed by the Bank vide aforesaid letter dt. 12.04.2008 (Exhibit-M-32). Therefore, the witness

highlighted the fact that a Cash Receipt was generated using Shri Paunikar’s ID. Although he was on leave on that

particular day. In the event an employee was on leave at that point of time, he could not prepare a cash receipt for any

customer since at the relevant time JDE access was available only in the corporation’s office which is also evident

from the deposition of workman during his cross examination. Exhibit M-26 provides login details given by HQO

ERP Server (software. As per the above login report, the login ID of two employees i.e., Employee Number 3070320

(Vinod A. Parate) and Employee Number 30061250 (V. G. Paunikar) were used to log-in to JDE Software system

through same IP Address on 08.08.2006, 16.09.2006, 25.06.2007 and 14.07.2007. Shri V. G. Paunikar was assigned

to Customer Service Cell at Nagpur (LIC Building) during 01.06.2005 to (including aforesaid period of Leave dt.

09.12.2005) whereas many cash receipts were made from his Employee User ID during the said tenure from Khapri

LPG Plant premises wherein Nagpur LPG RO is also situated. The MW-4 has then referred to the Statement given by

the workman on 20.03.2008 in the presence of the then Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer. It is at Exhibit M-38 and the

original copy has also been filed on record subsequently. The workman has signed the said Statement on every page.

Thus, the workman confirmed, by putting his signatures on all the six pages, that his Statement was correctly

recorded. In that Statement Exhibit M-38, the workman admitted that he was physically present at the Nagpur LPG

Regional Office on 08.08.2006. During the recording of his Statement, the workman was shown the attendance

register for the said date and, upon verification, confirmed that the signature appearing therein was his own. This

admission on the part of the workman clearly indicates that although Shri V.G. Paunikar was working in Nagpur City

(LIC Building) at that time, workman Shri Parate had used his Log-in-ID while sitting at Khapri LPG Plant Premises.

33.

Not only this, the workman has also admitted that his duties also included cheque preparation, Preparation of

Cash Receipts, printing of Bank Deposit Slip (BDS), etc. Hence, these admissions of the workman clearly fortify the

stand of HPCL that the duties assigned to him included preparation of BDS, Cash Receipts, etc. Hence these

admissions of the workman clearly fortify the stand of HPCL that the duties assigned to him included preparation of

BDS, Cash Receipts, etc. Shri Manoj Junghare vide his letter dt. 23.01.2008 & 13.02.2008 at Exhibit M-24 & Exhibit

M-10, clearly gives an inference that workman Shri Parate in connivance with Shri Manoj Junghare had misused the

ERP access of Shri V.G. Paunikar and committed the fraudulent activities by using the BDS Update Option thereby

giving credit to the respective dealers/ customers and assisting them to lift the product basis the same at the expense

of the corporation. While referring to another document at Exhibit M-30 which is the screen shot taken from the

computer about the extract of JDE Statements, witness has highlighted that in this particular document, remarks

column was left blank deliberately so that further manipulation could be done while preparing Cash Receipts and

Bank Deposit Slips using manual updation option, generally in the remark’s column, BDS details will be reflected.

However, since the workman updated the entries using manual updation option, he kept the column blank

deliberately.

34.

MW-4 has then referred to other set of JDE screenshots taken from the computer system and placed on

record along with the list of documents dt. 08.04.2025. They pertain to Cash Receipts Nos. 6007343, 6009701 and

7005044, all created in favour of M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency and corresponding Demand Draft Nos. are 86599, 87172

and 93411 respectively. Now, when we cross check these details with the details furnished by the State Bank of India

vide Exhibit M-32, it could be seen that the Bank had clearly informed M/s. Jeevan Gas Agency that Cheque Nos.

86599 and 87172 were not issued by the Bank at all, whereas Cheque No. 93411 was issued by the Bank in favour of

HPCL. The discrepancies in the record, therefore, speak volumes about the Mal-practices adopted by the workman

using not only his own log-in ID but also that of Shri Paunikar.

35.

All the four witnesses adduced by the management in support of his contention have deposed consistently

and in complete corroboration with each other not only through their oral testimonies but also by specifically referring

to the documents already placed on record and duly exhibited before this court. Accordingly, the depositions of all

four witnesses are mutually supportive, consistent, and reliable, particularly when nothing material has emerged

9528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

during their cross-examinations to indicate that they have deposed against workman Shri Parate on account of any

personal rivalry, past enmity, mala fide intention, or vengeance.

36.

Now, turning to the evidence led by workman Shri Vinod Parate in his defence, it could be seen that he has

never denied the contentions made on letter dt. 23.01.2008 and 20.03.2008 the allegations which are alleged against

the workman were not denied. It means it is impliedly admitted the contentions written in both letters. Applicant/

workman has also voluntarily admitted that Khapri LPG Plant and the Nagpur LPG Regional Office are both located

in the same premises in Khapri. However, relying upon one particular letter dt. 08.04.2005 which came to be filed by

him and which is marked as Exhibit W-1, the workman has deposed that he was required to perform the work as per

the enclosed duty list / core-brief areas of work. Although, Exhibit W-1 is signed by Shri R.B. Bharadwaj, the then

Plant Manager, the so-called enclosure laying down core-brief areas of work does not bear any signature or stamp or

office seal of the Corporation. Therefore, the cryptic mention of RO JOBS & MARKETING JOB is wholly vague,

inconclusive and does not advance the case of the workman in any manner. On the contrary, Exhibit W-1, itself

clearly demonstrates that the duties assigned to the workman were exhaustive and inclusive in nature, as it is

specifically mentioned that “please note that in addition to the listed job, you are required to do all the job

assigned by Deputy Manager Finance from time to time.” Even as per the workman’s own document, the nature

and scope of duties assigned to him were not confined or restricted to any particular category of work.

37.

Insofar as the alleged delay in issuance of the charge-sheet to the workman is concerned, the corporation has

already explained, in detail, the reasons for such delay in its Reply. The management was required to undertake

careful scrutiny of voluminous transactions, computerized data, and related records, which necessarily involved a

detailed preliminary investigation before issuance of the charge-sheet. Therefore, chargesheet was filed against the

delinquent employee after careful scrutiny of the matter. Therefore, the workman has completely failed to establish

his contention that false charges were levelled against him. in any case it was incumbent upon the workman to

specifically plead and prove that HPCL and its officials were actuated by mala fide intentions or ulterior motives to

falsely implicate him for any particular reason. The workman has utterly failed to establish any such ill motive, bias,

personal animosity, or ulterior purpose on the part of the Management or its officials. The workman Shri Vinod Parate

has admitted that the JD Edwards Enterprises One (JDE) Software System was introduced in HPCL in the year 2004

and that he was fully aware of the said system. The workman has also admitted that the said software system could be

accessed only from within the office premises of HPCL and not from any external location. Significantly, he has

further admitted that if any employee was on leave, it was not possible for such employee to access the said software

system. These admissions clearly and unequivocally establish that the workman had logged into the JDE System by

unauthorizedly and illegally using the Login ID of Shri Paunikar, his colleague, during the period when Shri Paunikar

was on leave. No other person was suggested to perform this work at the relevant point of time in the work place

mentioned above.

38.

Mere denial of the charges or to say that he was not entrusted the work of handling software, preparing BDS,

depositing negotiable instruments in the bank account of the HPCL cannot be accepted at all without any concrete

proof in support thereof.

39.

It is also argued on behalf of the management that management has completely lost confidence in the

workman. Therefore, the acts involving financial irregularities, misappropriation or breach of trust are viewed with

utmost seriousness. In the instant case the conduct of the workman as established on record has caused serious

financial prejudice to the establishment and has irreparably shaken the confidence reposed in him by the management.

In such circumstances the continuance of the workman in service was neither desirable nor in the interest of the

organization. Accordingly having bonafide lost confidence in the workman, the management took the decision to

dismiss him from service which action is fully justified, legal, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.

40.

Although, learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner has argued that Jeevan Singh is hearsay witness. He

has not seen the occurrence before his eyes. Therefore, the evidentiary value of the hearsay witness is not credible.

Learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner have also referred one letter dt. 13.02.2008 which is addressed to Senior

Manager HPCL, Khapri Wardha Road Nagpur written by Manoj Jhunghare in which Manoj Jhunghare had denied the

all transaction between him and Vinod Parate and also given clean chit to Mr. Vinod Parate. But the contents written

in this letter were not proved by the writer of this letter by adducing him as defence witness from the side of the

petitioner. Not only this, the original copy of this letter was for the first time given to the enquiry officer by the

delinquent employee himself. Whereas this letter was addressed to Senior Manager HPCL under which circumstances

the original copy of this letter was received by delinquent employee Vinod Parate. It has not been cleared by him.

meaning thereby afterthought and with connivance of the Manoj Jhunghare this letter was received by himself.

Whereas this letter was addressed to Senior Manager Nagpur Khapri Branch. It transpires that this letter was prepared

by Vinod Parate with connivance of Mr. Manoj Jhunghare. But the applicant Shri Vinod Parate has never adduced

Manoj Jhunghare to prove the averments written in this letter. Therefore, the contents of this letter are not proved.

Therefore, it has no value in evidence.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9529

41.

In catena of judgements, it is held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of

money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When

an employee is found guilty of misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation

losing confidence or faith in such an Employee and awarding punishment of Dismissal. In such cases, there is no

place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the

quantum of punishment. It is for the Management to maintain internal discipline, and particularly financial discipline,

to keep the wheels of the Organization running smoothly. The theft, fraud, neglect of work, etc. are writ large in the

conduct of the workman. For such an act of commission and omission, amount to wilful falsification of records,

illegal gratifications, etc. the punishment of Dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate; nor does the

punishment call for interference by this Tribunal. One has to find out whether it is a case of no evidence or some

evidence against. Secondly, one has to find out, whether material/ evidence available on record is sufficient for a

prudent person to hold and arrive at a positive finding that the delinquent employee is guilty of the charges of

misconducts levelled. In the instant case, on the one hand, management has led oral and documentary evidence before

this Tribunal and on the other hand, the workman has completely failed to rebut the allegations levelled against him.

Management has produced more than sufficient evidence from which it infers that the guilt of the delinquent

employee is completely proved. That the alleged fraud has been committed by delinquent employee Vinod Parate.

42.

In the case of Mohammad Salim Siddique V/s State of UP and others 2011 (2UPLBEC1575) Allahabad

High Court and Ajeet Kumar Nag V/s General Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Haldia JT 2005 (8) SC

425. The distinction between departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has been drawn. The two proceedings

i.e. criminal and departmental are indirect different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. The

object of criminal proceedings is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender as the purpose of enquiry proceedings

is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance service rules. The rule relating the

appreciation of evidence if the two proceedings if also not similar. In a criminal law burden of proof is on the

persecution and unless the persecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts, he cannot be

convicted by the court of law. In departmental enquiry on the other hand penalty can be imposed on the delinquent

officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability procedure with respect to standard to proof

in criminal case and departmental enquiry are different. In the case of departmental enquiry, the technical rules of

evidence have no application and the doctrine of proof of beyond doubt has also no application in the departmental

enquiry. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society or for

breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So, crime is an act of

omission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the

service and efficiency of public service. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry

and trial of criminal case. Looking to this law established by Hon’ble Supreme Court there is sufficient evidence on

record to establish the guilt of the delinquent employee in this case the allegations alleged by the management.

Therefore, in this matter penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of

preponderance of probability.

43.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi V/s Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749, has categorically

held that judicial review is not an appeal on merits but is limited to scrutiny of the decision-making process;

accordingly, Courts/ Tribunals cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute their own findings in place of those

recorded by the competent authority.

44.

In the case of Om Kumar V/s Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after

considering the Wednesbury Principles and the Doctrine of Proportionality, has observed and held that the question of

quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the

High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is

confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as Wednesbury Principles.

45.

In Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. V/s Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, Air 2007 Supreme Court 152, the

Hon’ble Apex held as:

It is also not open to the Tribunal and Courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived

at the domestic Tribunal. In the instant case, the opinion arrived at by the Corporation was rightly accepted by

the Tribunal but not by the Court. We, therefore, hold that the order of reinstatement passed by the Single

Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is contrary to the law on the basis of a catena of decisions of

this Court. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or sympathy on the part of the judicial forums for

interfering with the quantum of punishment of removal which cannot be justified. Similarly, the High Court

can modify the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India only when it

finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.

46.

In the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) & Anr.

V/s Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 in Paragraph 16 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed and held as under:

9530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“16.

The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows:

a. when charges(s) of misconduct are proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a

particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

b. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/ departmental authorities and to decide the quantum

of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the

competent authority.

c. limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority,

only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

d. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges

framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the

disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court

by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.

e. the only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent

is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical

or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is

found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a

complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after

the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with

unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.”

47.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others V/s. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610,after

relying upon its earlier judgements in the cases of B.C Caturvedi V/s Union of India & Other, (1995) 6 SCC

749; Union of India & Another V/s G. Ganayatham, (1997) 7 SCC 463; Om Kumar & Other V/s Union of

India, (2001) 2 SCC 386; Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. & Another, (2007) 4

SCC 669; and chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Another V/s Mukul Kumar

Choudhuri & Other, (2009) 15 SCC 620; has held that authoritatively delineated the contours of judicial review in

disciplinary matters. It has been categorically held that High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence, cannot interfere

with findings of fact if they are based on some evidence and cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment unless

the same is shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by perversity, illegality, or procedural impropriety. The Hon’ble

Apex Court emphasised that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is beyond the scope of judicial review.

48.

Further the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Rajendra G. Parikh V/s. Chief General

Manager & Anr., C/SCA/12390/2012 vide judgement dt. 12.07.2024, observed, as under:

“The above-mentioned decisions of this Court give a clear idea of the limited scope of judicial review of the

discretion exercised by the employer to impose the particular penalty on the delinquent employee. The

Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the High Courts cannot exercised appellate jurisdiction in such

matters and substitute their opinion for the one formed by the disciplinary authority. It has been held that the

punishment imposed by the competent authority cannot be modified. Substituted with a lesser penalty unless

the court is satisfied that the same is grossly or shockingly disproportionate or is so unreasonable that no

person of reasonable prudence would have imposed such punishment in the facts and circumstances of

the case.”

49.

The act of putting Employee’s money to jeopardy speaks ill of the Honesty and integrity of the workman.

The act of dishonesty or fraud or misappropriation lowers down the reputation of employer in public. The public

loose their confidence in the company, which affects business and finally the national economy. That, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Air-India Corporation, Bombay V/s. V.A. Rebellow and Ors., AIR 1972 SC 1343 observed

that:

“Once the employer has lost confidence in the employee and the Bonafide loss of confidence is affirmed, the

order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the

office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement

cannot be directed.”

50.

In Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and Ors. V/s. Factory Manager and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 3645; the Hon’ble

Apex Court laid down the test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether there was bona fide loss of confidence

in the employee, observing that:

“(i) the workman is holding the position of trust and confidence;

(ii) by abusing such position, be commits act which results in forfeiting the same; and

(iii) to continue him in service/ establishment would be embarrassing the inconvenient to the employee, or

would be detrimental to the discipline or security or the establishment. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9531

based upon the mind of the management. Objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of

apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trust worthiness or reliability of the employee, must

be alleged and proved.”

51.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Etawah & Ors. V/s. Hoti Lal & Anr.,

(2003) 3 SCC 605, outlined the mode to be adopted for determining whether the punishment imposed by the

disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate and observed as under:

The court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record as to why it is felt that the

punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. The scope for interference is very limited and restricted

to exceptional cases. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why

the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. A mere

statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set-up, the

type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go in to decision-making process while considering

whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where

honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently.

Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in

financial transactions or act in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and

unexceptional.”

52.

That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Anr. V/s. Bela Bagchi & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC

435, observed the following in Para 15:

“15. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of

the depositors and the customers. Every officer/ employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to

protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and

diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are

inseparable from the functioning of every officer/ employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in

Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager V/s Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996) (9) SCC 69, it is no defence

available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without

authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its

officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by itself

a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and

were serious. That being so, the plea about absence of loss is also sans substance.”

53.

Apex Court in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. V/s H. Amaresh reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187

upheld the dismissal of the delinquent who had misappropriated Rs. 360.95/-. The court held that “the loss of

confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity

cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law.”

54.

Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the General Manager (P), Canara Bank V/s/

Ganganarasimhaiah, 2025 INSC 1088 ruled as under:

When a court is considering whether the punishment of “termination from service” imposed upon a bank employee

is shockingly excessive or dis-proportionate to the gravity of the proved misconduct, the loss of confidence in the

employee will be an important and relevant factor. When an unknown person comes to the bank and claims to be the

account-holder of a long inoperative account, and a bank employee, who does not know such person, instructs his

colleague to transfer the account from “dormant” to “operative” category (contrary to the instructions regulating

dormant accounts) without any kind of verification, and accepts the money withdrawal from such person, gets a token

and collects the amount on behalf of such person for the purpose of handing it over to such person, he in effect

enables such unknown person to withdraw the amount contrary to the banking procedures; and ultimately, if it

transpires that the person who claimed to be the account- holder was an impostor, the bank cannot be found fault with

if it says that it has lost confidence in the employee concerned. A bank is justified in contending that not only the

employees who are dishonest, but those who are guilty of gross negligence, are not fit to continue in its service.

55.

A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard proof required is that of preponderance of

probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The principle of preponderance of probability in departmental

enquiries has been succinctly summed-up by the Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and

another V/s Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491. To quote the unparallel and inimitable expressions:

“In a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not

apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to

hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and

Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is

strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite

decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and other authorities by counsels on

9532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations

and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness,

bias or surrender of independence of judgement vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a

domestic tribunal, cannot be held good.”

56.

That in the departmental enquiry, the standard of proof required in a departmental order enquiry differs

materially from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court in the cases Union of India V/s.

Sardar Bahadur (1972 SLR SC 355); State of Andhra Pradesh V/s. Shree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) and

Nand Kishore Prasad V/s State of Bihar (1978 (2) SLRSC 46), has held; “A disciplinarily proceeding is not a

criminal trial and that standard of proof required in a disciplinarily enquiry is that of preponderance of

probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the proof required in a criminal trial.”

57.

It is worthwhile to refer to the decision of High Court of Gujrat at Ahmedabad in the case of C. S. Amin V/s.

Assistant General Manager SBI, Region III & 2 reported in 2016 Law Suit (Guj) 2016 wherein the Hon’ble

Court has observed as under: -

“I take notice of the fact that the inquiring authority has examined each and every charge levelled against the

writ applicant including the documents produced by the Presenting Officer and came to the conclusion that all

the charges were fully proved. In a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority is expected to prove the

charges on preponderance of proportionality and not on proof beyond the reasonable doubt.”

58.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Orissa Mining Corporation Appellants and Another Vs. Ananda

Chandra Prusty, (1996) 11 SCC 600, (at Para 6), held as:

“On a consideration of the totally of the facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of charges we

are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The position with respect to burden of proof is as clarified by us

herein above viz., that there is no such thing as on absolute burden of proof, always lying upon the department

in a disciplinary inquiry. The burden of proof depends upon the nature of explanation and the nature of

charges. In a given case the burden may be shifted to the delinquent officer, depending upon his explanation.

For example, take the first charge in this case. The charge was that he made certain false nothing on account of

which loans were disbursed to certain ineligible persons. The respondent’s case was that those nothing was

based upon certain documents produced and certain records maintained by other employees in the office. In

such a situation it is for the respondent to establish his case. The department is not expected to examine those

other employees in the office to show that their acts or records could not have formed the basis of wrong

noting’s made by the respondent.”

59.

It is also to be noted at this juncture that there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of

proof. Burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and it never shifts, onus of proof on the other

hand, shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. For instance, in a suit for

possession based on title, once the Plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus

on the Defendant, it is for the Defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof, the burden of proof lying on

the Plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the Plaintiffs title, vide RVE

VENKATACHALA Gounder V. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple, AIR 2003 SC 4548 (4558-59);

(2003) 8 SCC 752. That once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the

evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal

except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization.

60.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following judgements: -

i. (2009) 2 Supreme Court cases 570, Roop Singh Negi V/s Punjab National Bank and Others, Civil Appeal No.

7431 of 2008

ii. (2022) 13 SCC 1, Abhay Jain V/s High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and another, Civil Appeal No.

2029 of 2022

iii. 1995 SCC Online Bom 434: (1995) 2 LLN 720: 1995 Lab IC 1496: (1997) 1 LLJ 206, Chandrakumar

Madhukar Deshmukh and others V/s Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay and others.

iv. AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 753, Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2007, LIC of India and Anr. V/s Ram Pal Singh Bisen

v. 1969 AIR (SC) 983, Central Bank of India Ltd. V/s Prakash Chand Jain, Case No. 498 of 1966

vi. AIR 1972 Supreme Court 330 Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 1966, M.s Bareilly Electricity Supply Corporation

Ltd. V/s the workmen and others.

vii. 2009 SCC Online P&H 6827, Diwan Chand V/s The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Amritsar and

another, Civil W.P. No. 10899 of 1988.

Viii. AIR 2020 Supreme Court 4908, Arjun Punditrao Khotkar V/s Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9533

The above case laws are not applicable as the facts and circumstances are different with the present case in hand.

61.

In view of the above discussions and deliberations, I am of the opinion that there are repeated transactions

involving acts of moral turpitude committed by the workman which resulted into loss. So far, the proportionality of

the punishment is concerned it is found that commission of grave misconduct of dishonesty, act highly prejudicial to

the interest of the management and causing loss to the management have been proved against the workman. The

misconduct reflects lack of integrity with the workman and lack of devotion towards duty. Keeping in view the

seriousness of the charges proved a punishment cannot be said to be shockingly excessive or disproportionate. So,

there is no scope to interfere with the punishment. Hence, the punishment of dismissal given with effect from

08.08.2012 to Shri. Vinod Anandrao Parate who was working as Chief Administrative Clerk at Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited (HPCL) Nagpur in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service is just fare and legal. On the

basis of above findings and discussions reference is answered as follows.

AWARD

“The action of the disciplinary authority, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Nagpur, in imposing the

penalty of Dismissal from service on Shri. Vinod Parate, Chief Administrative Clerk vide his order dt.

08.08.2012 is just, fair and legal. The applicant is not entitled to any relief.”

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per the rules and file be consigned to the record room after

due compliance.

(Justice (Retd.) SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1823.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

ऑयल एंड नेचुरल गैस कॉपोरेशन गलगमटेड के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और ओएनजीसी मरास पोटस कॉन्द्ट्रैर्कट

एम्प्लॉइज यूगनयन के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, चेन्नई, पंचाट

(ररफरेन्द्स न.- 48/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी

के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-30011/37/1999-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 48/2017) 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 Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and ONGC Madras Port Contract Employees Union which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-30011/37/1999- IR(M)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

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

CHENNAI

Date: 28-07-2026

Present: SUSHIL KUMAR-II,

PRESIDING OFFICER

I.D. No. 48 /2017

BETWEEN

The Secretary,

ONGC Madras Port Contract Employees Union,

New No.22 ( Old 8),

9534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Venkatesapuram Second Street,

Triplicane, Chennai-600 005.

.

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Regional Director

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.

SRBC, MMDA Building, Egmore,

Chennai-600 008.

: 2nd Party/Respondents

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/ Petitioner

:

M/s. Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent

:

M/s. P.N.Radhakrishnan, Advocates

**********

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi vide its order

No.L-30011/37/1999-IR(M) dated 17.05.2017 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication:-

2.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the demand of ONGC Madras Port Contract Employees Union seeking regularization of 55

contract workmen in the Principal Employer establishment of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,

Chennai listed in Annexure A as ONGC is Principal Employer is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workmen are entitled to?”

Facts of the case:-

3.

The Joint Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union and three others submitted a request before the

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi to refer the dispute before this Tribunal. The

said representation was decided by the Government of India on the following terms:-

The workmen were never employed by the ONGC, but were all employed by various contractors. No ID therefore,

exists against M/s.ONGC Ltd. for their employment. Later on 07.11.1999 and Corrigendum dated 0/2000 was issued

by the Central Government in the proceedings vide reference No. L-30011/37/1999-IR(M) dated 17.05.2017. The

ONGC filed a Writ Petition No.31157 of 2001 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to quash the order dated

17.11.1999 and corrigendum 00/2000 on the ground that the Petitioner had to transport materials and other supplies

from on shore to off shore. The contract for stevedoring, shipping services, loading and unloading of materials and

transport of materials by tempo, trucks, vans, trailers, etc. within a radius of 35 kms., from Madras Port and movement

of materials by crane, fork lifts, etc. was awarded by calling for tenders from various entrepreneurs. The last of such

contracts was entered into between the petitioner and M/s Pandian Transports for a period of one year commencing

from 18.08.1994 which was terminated with effect from 04.01.1995. The union raised demands in respect of wages

payable to them. The union and Transporter had entered into a settlement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act on 29.08.1994. On the termination of the contract between the petitioner and the contractor, the said

Union made a demand for payment of earned wages for the month of December, 1994 and 3 days in January, 1995.

The contractor had settled all the claims by 1996. The Union raised an industrial dispute with respect to revision of

wages of the workmen of the contractor. The establishment was also impleaded as a party. Conciliation proceedings

took place. The ONGC took a stand that there was no privity of contract between the establishment and the members

of the Union and it had no control over the said contract work. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) passed an

order on 19.09.1995 specifically stating that the dispute was not fit for adjudication as the workmen were never

employed by ONGC, but were employed by various contractors and no industrial dispute exists against the ONGC.

However, the Labour Ministry, Govt. of India passed an order dated 17.11.1999 stating that industrial dispute exists

between the ONGC management and their workmen. This order was subsequently revised by corrigendum dated

13.10.2000. the ONGC establishment claimed that Labour Ministry’s order under reference for ID is invalid because

there is no relationship of employer and employee between the ONGC and the workmen mentioned in the list

Annexure-A – in the list of corrigendum.

4.

The Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.21407 of 2000 has observed as under:-

“It had been specifically stated that the petitioner was never the direct employer at any point of time which was

accepted earlier on the same set of facts. It cannot be said that some new facts were brought to the notice of the

Respondent (Labour Ministry Vs. Union of India) or that there was some other relevant consideration for referring the

matter u/s.10(1) of the Act.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9535

The power of the Respondent does not appear to have been exercised reasonably and in a rational manner….

The order of reference shall stand set aside. The matter is remanded to the Respondent for consideration afresh.”

5.

This judgement was challenged by the ONGC Contract Employees Union in W.A. No.3622 of 2002 against

the management of ONGC and 4 others. The Hon’ble Writ Appellate Court had observed that there is no force in the

Writ Appeal and accordingly, the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the Labour Ministry, Govt. of India referred the

present Industrial Dispute.

6.

As per the claim petition, the workmen are represented by the petitioner Union affiliated to Hind Mazdoor

Sabha Sangh. The members of the petitioner union had been employed for more than 60 years doing handling job for

the Respondent through various contractors. Even though the 2nd party had been changing contractors year after year,

the members of the petitioner union continued in employment as such with the Respondent. The Respondent entered

into a settlement with the contractors and names of the members of 1st Party are mentioned in the said settlement.

7.

It is further stated that the work in which Petitioner Union’s members were involved is perennial and

permanent in nature and the Respondent instead of employing the workmen directly to do the said handling job

engaged the members of the Petitioner through contractors in order to deny benefits of regularization of service and

extension of various welfare status. When the members of the Petitioner union were employed through M/s.Pandian

Transport for the Respondent, the erstwhile union raised industrial dispute regarding charter of demands and the said

conciliation ended in failure on 31.01.1995. The members of the Petitioner gave notice of strike and struck work from

04.01.1995. the Respondent instead of negotiating and settling dispute took extreme step of terminating the contract

itself in order to deny work to the members of the 1st party who lost even the status of contract workman. Thus, the

Respondent revalidated the contract with M/s. Pandian Transport on 30.05.199 for a brief period of three months and

the members of the Petitioner were again engaged for the said period of three months. The Madras Port Trust had also

issued harbour entry permit passes to the members of the Petitioner union for carrying out contract work of the

Respondent.

8.

It is also stated that in a similar situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Vs Petroleum Coal

Labour Union and others vide its order dated 17.04.2015 in Civil Appeal No.3727 of 2015 has directed the ONGC to

regularize the service of the concerned workmen and to give back wages from the date of their entitlement. Therefore,

the Petitioner prays to hold that demand of the Petitioner Union for regularization of 54 workmen covered by the

order of the 2nd Party is fully justified and direct the Respondent to reinstate the 54 workmen into service with full

back wages, continuity of service with other attendant benefits.

9.

During the pendency of references, it is informed that 17 workmen died. It was requested by this Tribunal

that legal heirs may be substituted on behalf of the deceased workmen .

10.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workmen filed substitution petition only for 14 deceased

workmen, but this petition is not supported by an affidavit and there was no request to set aside the abatement which

had already took place on failure of the substitute of LRs within 90 days after the death of the concerned workmen.

Therefore, this petition was dismissed. Therefore, the matter with reference to 17 workmen who died and their legal

heirs are not substituted as abated.

11.

The Respondent filed written submissions and stated that the workmen never employed by the respondent,

but were employed by various contractors, no industrial dispute exists against the respondent for their employment. It

was the contractors responsibility to handle the material with his own men and using his own supervisor to supervise

the work. The Respondent did not have any control over such work. It was the total responsibility of the contractor to

carry out the obligation as per the terms of contract with the respondent. There is no employer-employee relationship

between the ONGC Ltd and members of the Petitioner union.

12.

It is further stated that members of the Petitioner union were not directly employed by the respondent and no

identity card was ever issued for their employment. The claim made by the Petitioner union is not maintainable either

in law or on facts and are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. It is also stated that the Petitioner union does not have

any right or locus standi to represent the workmen of the contractors. The Petitioner union is not a recognized union

by the respondent. The claim made by the petition union is barred by labour laws. The Transport & Dock Workers

Union have arrived at a final settlement with the contractors as evidenced by Memorandum of Settlement dated

07.05.1996 and the matter has become final. There has been no victimization or unfair labour practice on the part of

the Respondent and no signature has been appended by the officials of the Respondent on the entry passes issued by

Madras Port Trust and if any such signature, it would have been only the work carried out on a particular date on

contract basis.

13.

In the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others , it relates to regularization of term

based security personnel who were directly engaged by ONGC and not through contractors. Therefore, it is submitted

that the facts involved in the present case on hand and the above cited case are not the same and thus, not applicable.

9536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Witnesses Examined:

For the First Party Petitioner : WW1 Shri Alex, Secretary

For the 2nd Party/Management : MW1 Shri Vinod K.B., DGM (Legal)

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side:

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

-

Copy of Resolution of ONGC Madras Port Contract Employees Union

Ex.W2

29.08.1994

Memorandum of Settlement U/s. 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act between M/s.

Pandian Transport and their Laborers

Ex.W3

29.08.1994

Memorandum of Settlement U/s. 18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act between M/s.

Pandian Transport and their supervisory staff

Ex.W4

28.09.1994

Contract between ONGS and M/s. Pandian Transport

Ex.W5

19.09.1995

Order declining reference of Industrial Disputr raised by the workman of M/s.

Pandian Transport AND CLEAN COPY

Ex.W6

21.05.1996

Communication from 4th Respondent to the M/s. Pandian Transport

Ex.W7

24.05.1996

Challan for the payment of provident fund by M/s. Pandian Transport

Ex.W8

24.05.1996

Challan for the payment of provident fund by M/s. Pandian Transport

Ex.W9

27.05.1996

Memorandum of Understanding between M/s. Pandian Transport and Transport

and dock work union

Ex.W10

21.08.1997

Representation of Petitioner to the Regional Labour Commissioner

Ex.W11

21.11.1997

Communication (from ONGS to Asst. Labour Commissioner (C)-II

Ex.W12

17.11.1999

Order of reference

Ex.W13

13.10.2000

Corrigendum issued by Respondent to order of reference

Ex.W14

28.11.2000

Affidavit in W.P 21407 of 2000

Ex.W15

17.02.2001

Counter affidavit in W.P 21407 of 2000

Ex.W16

19.04.2002

Order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in in W.P 21407 of 2000

Ex.W17

25.08.2016

Letter from Petitioner counsel to respondent

Ex.W18

26.10.2016

Letter from Dy.CLC (Central) to counsel for Petitioner

Ex.W19

13.11.2016

e-mail communication

Ex.W20

03.11.2016

Letter from Petitioner counsel to Dy.CLC (Central)

Ex.W21

08.12.2016

Letter from Petitioner counsel to Dy.CLC (Central)

Ex.W22

28.01.2017

Letter from Petitioner counsel to respondent

Ex.W23

18.02.2017

Letter from Petitioner counsel to respondent

Ex.W24

24.05.2017

Notice issued to CGIT Chennai

Ex.W25

01.06.2017

High Court order in W.P. 7098 of 2017

Ex.W26

-

Certified standing order for contingent employees of ONGC

Ex.W27

01.03.83 TO

31.03.83

Harbour entry pass

Ex.W28

12.01.1984

ID card and receipt evidencing Transport & Dock Workers Union affiliated to

Hind Mazdoor Sabha

Ex.W29

01.07.1984

Attendance slip of 1st Party at Madras harbour

Ex.W30

22.10.1985

Letter issued to Deputy Director to Assistant Commandant of CISF, Madras Port

Trust

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9537

Ex.W31

20.05.1992

Memorandum of Settlement between Sanco Trans Ltd and Transport & Dock

Labour Union for 13 staff

Ex.W32

20.05.1992

Memorandum of Settlement between Sanco Trans Ltd and Transport & Dock

Labour Union for 44 labourers

Ex.W33

30.03.1994

Strike notice given by Union to Respondent

Ex.W34

April, 1994

Salary slip issued by M/s.Sanco Trans Ltd

Ex.W35

Nov.1994

Salary slip issued by M/s. Pandian Transports

Ex.W36

17.05.2017

Order of reference by Central Govt.

Ex.W37

-

Monthly photo pass issued by Madras Port Trust to K.Thameem

On behalf of Respondent/Management :

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

23.04.1991

Advertisement of Notice Inviting Tenders For transportation and handling of

material at Madras Harbour.

Ex.M2

-

Section 2 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948

Ex.M3

-

Section 3 of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948.

Ex.M4

-

Section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948.

Ex.M5

30.08.1997

1998 (3) L.L.N.374 - S.Karuppaiah and others Vs.Chennai Dock Labour Board

Ex.M6

04.05.1994

Letter from M/S.SANCO Trans Ltd. to Respondent

Ex.M7

29.08.1994

Settlement under Sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

between Pandian Transport and Transport and Dock Workers' Union – Labourers

Ex.M8

29.08.1994

Settlement under Sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

between Pandian Transport and Transport and Dock Workers' Union Staff

Ex.M9

28.09.1994

Contract Agreement - Respondent with M/s. Pandian Transport Pandian Transport

Ex.M10

21.05.1996

Letter - Transport and Transport and Dock Workers' Union Staff to M/s.Pandian

Transport

Ex.M11

19.09.1996

Order Ministry of Labour

Ex.M12

16.08.2000

Statement of claim in ID 8 of 2000

Ex.M13

02.05.2002

Order of CGIT Chennai in ID 8 of 2000

Ex.M14

28.02.2005

Order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.A. 3622 of 2002.

14.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for either side and perused the records.

15.

The point that arises for determination is whether the members of the Petitioner union were workmen of the

Respondent Corporation?

16.

This position can be ascertained after consideration of real nature of relationship. In the present case on hand,

the following facts are admitted by the Petitioner Union in the claim statement as well as during the course of

arguments that -

(i)

Contractor recruited the workmen;

(ii)

Salary and PF contribution was paid by the contractor;

(iii)

The contractor exercised disciplinary control and entered into agreement with the union. (This issue shall be

discussed in later part of this Award).

17.

It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the contract was sham or camouflage to evade the labour laws.

The Respondent ONGC had exercised direct supervision and effective control over the workmen, issued identity card

and contractor was merely a name lender with no independent business. He relied on the document marked as Ex.W27

by the Petitioner which is harbour entry pass issued by the Assistant Commandant of CISF. But, this document

cannot be termed as identity card issued by M/s. ONGC Ltd. This document is mere an entry pass to enter in the

secured area issued by security authority i.e, CISF.

9538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18.

Another document relied on by the Petitioner is Ex.W28, is an identity card issued by Secretary, Transport

and Dock Workers Union and the same was affiliated to Hind Mazdoor Sabha. This document is also not a proof of

document for employment of workmen in the office of the Respondent . It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that

Ex.W29 is attendance register. But this document is not issued by the Respondent ONGC Ltd and this register relates

to Hind Mazdoor Sabha Sangh and not the attendance register of Respondent/Management. There is no other

documentary evidence available on record which may suggest that the Respondent issued an identity card or provided

any attendance register in favour of the workmen of the Union.

19.

Now, I have to consider Memorandum of Settlement Ex.W2. This document was carried out between the

Transport & Dock Workers Union and M/s.Pandian Transport. Mr. Pandian, proprietor was the person who

represented the management and General Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Union and 44 labourers were covered

under this agreement. This agreement came into effect forthwith from 10.08.1994 to 28.02.1996. This agreement was

between the contractor and workmen regarding salary, sick leave, casual leave, earned leave and allowances etc. is an

important piece of evidence that workmen were employed by the contractor and not by the Respondent, because the

workmen accepted the contractor as their employer, and it was the contractor who paid wages, EPF and other benefits

and therefore, the contractor was their employer.

20.

Now, I have to consider the whether the contract arrangement is sham as argued by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner?

21.

There is no proof available on record which may suggest that M/s. ONGC Ltd. had selected or approved the

workmen or the contractor had not recruited the workmen. There is also no evidence that any official of the ONGC

directly supervised the day to work of the members of Petitioner Union or assigned duty or fixed working hours or

grant leave or evaluated performance to the concerned workmen. There is no evidence on record that concerned

workmen were under the disciplinary control of ONGC. The Petitioner union failed to submit any documents which

may prove that ONGC has issued any warning to any of the employees of the Petitioner union or put them under

suspension or passed any transfer order or termination order against them. There is no evidence that the contractor

supplied labourers to the ONGC. There is clear evidence on record that contractor was provided with the contract and

he performed the contract by engaging his own labourers.

22.

Even, during the course of oral evidence, the witness appeared on behalf of the Petitioner Union i.e.,

Secretary of the Union himself admitted in his cross examination that workmen were not appointed by the respondent

directly. The relevant part of the evidence runs as under:-

“It is true that our Union members were not directly employed by the Respondent at any point of time. It may

be true that the contract between M/s. ONGC Ltd. and M/s.Pandian Transport were wholesome ……

It is true that our names may not appear on record of the ONGC. It is true that M/s.ONGC Ltd has no direct

control over the workmen and they are under the control of M/s.Pandian Transport.”

In view of the above discussion, the above point is decided against the Petitioner Union.

23.

Now, I have consider applicability of case law in M/s.ONGC Ltd. Vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union & Ors

(supra). On perusal of the facts of this case, it appears that corporation employed some workmen as security guards

and security supervisors through contractors. However, vide Notification dated 08.12.1976 issued by Government of

India u/s.10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 abolished the contract labour . The

concerned workmen employed as per settlement arrived at between the trade union and the management of ONGC

u/s.18(1) of the Act. On 20.11.1982, the Respondent corporation passed a resolution by its policy decision to entrust

the security work to the CSIF to protect their installations. The said resolution was sanctioned by the President of

India on 16.12.1985. Thereafter, the workmen concerned raised an industrial dispute claiming regularization of their

services in the respondent corporation. The matter was referred to the Tribunal and taken as ID No.66/1991 and

passed Award dated 26.05.1999 directing the Respondent Corporation to regularize the services of concerned

workmen. The said Award was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P No.1846 of 2000 and

ultimately the Award was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9539

24.

The facts of the present case on hand are totally different. In the case of M/s. ONGC Ltd Vs. Petroleum Coal

Labour Union & Ors (supra), the Respondent engaged the workmen through contractors. But in the present case on

hand, the workmen were engaged by the contractor himself for his own work and not for the Respondent

establishment.

25.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted a copy of certified standing order for

contingent employees of the ONGC. But, this standing orders are applicable to the employees of ONGC. This issue is

already decided that the workmen, members of the Petitioner Union were not the employees of the Respondent

ONGC.

26.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted a copy of Contract Labour (Regulation

& Abolition) Act, 1970 and stated that this Act abolished the supply of labour through contractor. But, in the present

case on hand, the employees are engaged by the contractor himself for his own work.

27.

The Appellant filed the copy of following case laws :-

(i)

M/s.Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors (2001) 7 SCC 1.

(ii)

Umesh T.N & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P No.19588 of 2023;

(iii)

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd Vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers’ Union (2024) SCC online SC 270;

(iv)

Ranbir Singh Vs. S.K.Roy (2022) SCC online SC 521;

(v)

Air India Statutory Corporation Vs. Union Labour India (1997) 9 SCC 377;

(vi)

Order dated 27.01.2026 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.12192 of 2023 in M/s.Premium

Transmission P. Ltd Vs. K.S.Rathod & Others

28.

I have perused all the case laws relied on and considered the applicability of these case laws to the facts of

the present case on hand. In all these cases cited above employees were engaged by the management itself. But, in the

present case on hand, workmen are engaged by the contractor for his own work which was awarded by ONGC to the

contractor. Therefore, these case laws are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

AWARD

In view of the above discussion, the claim petition filed by the Petitioner Union is dismissed as devoid of any

merit. Ordered accordingly.

The Reference is answered accordingly.

Record be consigned to the record room.

Place : CHENNAI

SUSHIL KUMAR-II, Presiding Officer

Date : 28.07.2026

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस् त, 2026

का.आ. 1824.—औद्योगगक गववाि अगिगनयम (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

मेससस आंध्र सीमेंट्स गलगमटेड, जेपी ग्रुप, गवशाखा सीमेंट वर्कसस; मेससस एज़टेक सर्ववसेज़ के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध गनयोजकों और

श्री रापथी सोमूनाइडु के बीच अनुबंि में गनर्दिष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगगक अगिकरण एवं श्रम न्द्यायालय, हैिराबाि,

पंचाट (ररफरेन्द्स न.- 72/2018) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया है, प्रकागशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को

सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 11.08.2026 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[la- ,y-29012/17/2018-vkbZvkj(एम)]

सलोनी, उप गनिेशक

9540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 22, 2026/ SHRAVAN 31, 1948

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2026

S.O. 1824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 72/2018) 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 M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group, Visakha Cement Works; M/s Aztech Services and Sri

Raparthi Somunaidu which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government

on 11.08.2026.

[No. L-29012/17/2018- 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 10th day of July, 2026

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 72/2018

Between:

Sri Raparthi Somunaidu,

S/o Chena Sanyasi,

Porlupalam (V), Pendurthi (M),

Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.) – 531047 ..….Petitioner

AND

1.

The Senior Vice-President (Admn.) & Plant Head,

M/s Andhra Cements Limited, Jaypee Group,

Visakha Cement Woks, Porlupalem (Village),

Post Durganagar, Visakhapatnam, (A.P.) – 530029.

2.

M/s Aztech Services,

Manpower Contractors, F-3, Sai Krishna Towers,

Road No.3 Jagannadha Raju Nagar, Venkojipalam,

Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) – 530022 …… Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner : None

For the Respondent: None

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-29012/17/2018-IR(M) dated 13.04.2018

referred the following dispute under section 1JJ0(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between

the management of M/s Andhra Cements Limited, and their workmen. The reference is,

SCHEDULE

“Whether there has been termination of the services of Sri Raparthi Somunaidu, S/o Chena Sanyasi, supplied by M/s

Aztec services(contractor) by the management of Visakha Cement Works units of Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee

Group of company (principal employer) in October 2010 as alleged by Sri Raparthi Somunaidu or Sri Raparthi

Somunaidu, S/o Chena Sanyasi, by M/s Aztec Services (contractor) has on their own suddenly stopped working on

01.10.2010 as alleged by the management of Visakha Cement Woks, Andhra Cements Limited/Jaypee Group of

company (principal employer)?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस् त 22, 2026/ श्रावण 31, 1948

9541

Whether the action of the management of Visakha Cement Works, Jaypee Group of company (present principal

employer) in not considering Sri Raparthi Somunaidu, S/o Chena Sanyasi or services is fair, legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions (if any) are necessary in this regard?

Whether the action of the present management of Visakha Cement Works in not paying benefits for the past services

rendered to Visakha Cement Works by Sri Raparthi Somunaidu, S/o Chena Sanyasi is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the concerned workman is entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No 72/2018 and notices were issued to the parties

concerned.

2.

On the date fixed for appearance and filing of claim statement, Petitioner remained absent. Despite sufficient

opportunity, Petitioner has failed to appear and did not file any claim statement. Hence, a No Claim Award is

passed. The reference is answered accordingly.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. K. Phani Gowri, P.A., corrected and signed by me on this the 10th day of

July, 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

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.

KUMER

CHAND

MEENA

Digitally signed by

KUMER CHAND

MEENA

Date: 2026.09.21

15:48:30 +05'30'